Apple MacBook Air (11.6-inch) Review Discussion

Apple is known for pushing boundaries. Sometimes it's a cutting-edge industrial design, sometimes it's new technology and sometimes a new standard. When the MacBook Air was originally introduced, it was all three. Growing less unique with the netbook craze, Apple was forced to rethink thin. Did they succeed?

Read the full content of this Article: Apple MacBook Air (11.6-inch) Review

Related Articles:

• Apple MacBook Air (11.6-inch) First Look Review
• Apple Releases Two New Macbook Air Notebooks
• New Apple Products: No MacBooks, but many other goodies
• Apple Refreshes The MacBook Pro Line
• Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro (mid 2009) User Review
• Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro Review

 

Nice review!

All in all a nice machine, although I wouldn't purchase one for the office personally.

A pity about the heat the thing produces ... and the disappointing lack of an ethernet port, while understandable to keep the weight down in retrospect, is a surprise.

Still - I dislike the lack of upgrade abilities....

 

Yeah, it seems like you can upgrade the storage (one enterprising company has already jumped on board) but that's about it.

 

Nice review. This notebook looks like the ideal companion for a larger desktop replacement notebook or desktop. The lack of upgradeability and small size make it kind of impractical for use as a primary machine.

 

Very good review. My Sony TT is smaller than the Air at 11.1 1366x768 and i use it these days as my primary computer. I'm not a power user. I know when i was studying i prefered using a bigger screen 13.3 to write my essays/dissertation but now that is through i'm using my TT really all the time now.
I've used a 11.6 and it feels slightly bigger than the TT and the screen res is easier on the eye. I can quite imagine being able to do the research i needed to on a 11.6.

Apple have done very well here, still I would like to see more manfacturers after Sandy Bridge focusing on slightly higher end ultraportables.

 

Hi, J.R.,
you mentioned that there is a cooling fan, but, interesting, I see no cooling vents - where are they?

 

Excellent review. Do wish you'd post idle temps in addition to the load temps on your reviews. Might be especially interesting to see on a computer like this.

Just isn't scientific enough for me. I want numbers.

 

They vent out the back from the display hinge...

 

That is correct.

 

Design and innovation of Air was ripped from Sony, Apple just copied, the dimensions of air identical.

 

The big shocker here is that Apple has stuck with the same dated processor and lousy Nvidia integrated GPU as the increasingly dated 13" MacBooks? Why? Maybe the real answer is that Apple only wants to provide contemporary hardware on the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro lines for the sake of raking in obscene profits. Thanks Apple.

Another mystery is the really abominable 5 hour battery life? What's wrong with Apple? This is the same sort lousy battery life as the failed Dell Adamo. It's pretty telling that Dell drops the Adamo on the same week Apple brings out this new mediocre, shrunken, underpowered, dated MacBook? Has this thing been sitting on a shelf somewhere since 2008?

The big question is whether Apple devotees will notice just how awful this new MacBook Air really is? It's a great pity, because this form factor might have been a bigger hit than the lackluster original.

 

Show me a Sony notebook with the same dimensions of the Air.

I went over a likely scenario in the review, actually. You know, people can bag about the "dated processor" and "lousy NVIDIA GPU" all they want but what do you people expect them to put in a laptop this thin? Jeez, they aren't magic. Frankly I'm surprised it ran games as well as it did, so for the form factor I think they're doing just fine, actually.

The biggest criticism by far is the mediocre battery life when compared to the standard set by others. Even then I think it's not too awful, mostly because I suspect most people (please don't PM me you guys and say how you use your laptop 8 hours on battery every day because I'm sure you do) aren't going to be using the Air for more than 5-6 hours a day.

 

This post reeks of fanboyism. FYI, that "lousy NVidia GPU" is the most powerful GPU that could possibly be used in such a thin notebook. However, the only way to get that GPU in there was to use a C2D. And such a thin computer leaves very little room for a battery. So, basically, they were working with the limits of the form factor. It still accomplishes it's purpose, so it's far from "awful."

 

The real question that comes to mind immediately is "how can the OP drive a car with his (or head) so far up his own butt?" As a very vocal critic of the 13" MBP (for which I have taken a lot of heat), I have to say that the redesign of the same elements into the new MBA is genius. It is nearly a perfect ultraportable. We have yet to see if it can handle its own heat but from a design perspective, this little Air is a thing of beauty. This unit is sure to be a run-away success and will far outsell its "lackluster" predecessor. We can only hope that designers of SandyBridge units take their design cues from the apple engineers on this one and give us something similar in concept that takes advantage of the SB's advantages (and a decent display please). My 11.6" 1410T is getting very nervous.

Bronsky

 

Mixed feelings about it to be honest, it looks like a very nice piece of kit. Still smacks to me as a little bit of form over function. Any reason for it to need to be that thin apart from marketing? It's footprint is still the same as any other subnotebook. Battery is pretty poor at least for the 11.6". Battery life by the way was also one of the reasons Apple justified soldiering on with the C2D in the 13" MBP. However you want to dress it up, this is seriously old tech now, no doubt it's less of an issue in subnotebooks/netbooks. I'd still rather have a ULV C2D than an Atom. It's true to say that at the moment the C2D is more than capable of performing all of the tasks thrown at it, 2-3 years down the line though and I'm not so sure? We're still buying into a product with CPU architecture dating back to 2006.

I'm not too concerned about the price, Sony have and continue to charge astronomical amounts for their subnotebooks/netbooks. They don't seem to get half the flak Apple does.

 

They do get the same flak, if not more, even on machines like Z that seriously has no equal in terms of performance in its size, it's just NBR seldom reviews them.

 

Yes, a 48SP Nvidia GT216 core is much weaker than a 12SP, die integrated Intel graphics solution. Your argument is pure flamebait. Please stop.

 

Oh, they won't make the same mistake again? After "bumpgate," I came to the conclusion that NVIDIA hard burnt me repeatedly, while I'd never had an issue with Intel integrated graphics. With the iCore generation, Intel finally offers faultless support for 1080P. Unless you're talking about 3D applications, there really isn't any need for a GPU with dedicated memory, at least not with current Intel HD graphics..

Of course, in this case, we're talking about shared memory.

Well the 2008 CPU is nicely balanced by a GPU of similar vintage. Overall, not a bad combo for 2008, and back in 2008, I might have been dumb enough to fall for it. It isn't 2008 anymore. Ask most any NVIDIA GPU user from that era. It's amazing how many PC brands replaced notebook motherboards because of NVIDIA, and the effected consumers still don't comprehend that all of the trouble stemmed from NVIDIA's defective GPUs.

It isn't clear to me whether Apple signed up with NVIDIA before the extent of their issues became apparent, or inked the contract because NVIDIA's woes put Apple in a better position to negotiate costs. From the standpoint of the broad spectrum of Mac users, graphics performance must not be a priority, but that still doesn't explain the obsolete hardware, especially for a "new" model.

Again, nobody buys an integrated GPU for the sake of 3D performance. Indeed, Apple is stuck with NVIDIA for either contractual reasons, or because they don't want to invest in update the lower end of the MacBook line.

Personally, I'm not surprised the i3-330UM is still relatively uncommon, since the subnotebook segment was one of the biggest nonevents of the last decade. Oddly enough, mainstream PC manufacturers shifted to full powered iCore derivative when they updated compact models that had previously used CULV derivatives of the Core 2 Duo. Battery life didn't suffer all that much and there was more consumer appeal.

 

I think it's apparent that shared memory, however detrimental to performance, works quite well for the 320m. And like I said, OpenCL. That's not a 3D application. It's GPGPU acceleration, and I have a feeling Apple will utilize that more and more, and without the graphics subsystem it has now, it would be left completely out of that party. And memory bandwidth aside, 48 stream processors is insane for the actual size of this machine.

You keep throwing around 2008 here and there... but I really don't see what you're arguing about. If the part from 2008 performs slightly (read: only a tad bit) worse than the current part, and gets VERY similar, if not better battery life estimates, I see no reason why 2008 parts can't be used.

The SU9400 @ 1.4GHz = 963 Passmark CPU Points
The i3 330UM @ 1.2GHz = 1196 Passmark CPU Points
The SU9600 @ 1.6GHz = 1128 Passmark CPU Points

Also, the SU94/9600 consumes less power, and from what I have read, runs cooler. So I welcome it.

 

^
Those SU9400/SU9600 scores look like the results are bit lower than what they should be because W7 yields better results. I'm sure a lot of users ran those tests in Vista. I own a TT with a SU9600 and score just under 1400 passmark points in W7, not much of than what some i5 UM processors score. C2D ULV laptops also do get better battery life than there present day counterparts.

I see the point that linuxwanabe is making about the CPU being old tech. The MBA is no gaming machine but it is capable of playing games much better than ultraportables with Intel HD graphics. The 320M was introduced in 2009 or 2010 so to say that Apple could have made this laptop in 2008 is not quite true. If it is like this next year people will be much less forgiving.

It was interesting seeing the CDM, i had read some posts that the MBA SSD outperformed the Intel G2 SSD which does not appear to be the case. Although i do realise the benchmarks cannot always tell the whole strory.

I'm interested to see how other manfacturers respond.

 

I can see what you're trying to argue here, that Apple is doing its best with very old hardware. At $999, that is not praiseworthy. More to the point, it's worth noting that Intel HD has less of an impact on size than the dated NVIDIA solution. Of course, Apple can't use it because it's using he 2008 vintage processor.

You still don't get it. Without an iCore processor, you can't have Intel HD graphics. This is the real issue. For higher end systems, I'm entirely in favor of switchable graphics, especially since Intel HD is very capable of handling 1080P video content.

The real issue here is that Apple is using a processor that appeared in the 3rd Quarter of 2008. Most other manufacturers have discontinued, or will soon discontinue, their remaining CULV Core 2 Duo equipped notebooks. Apple is entering the game a full 2 years behind in the hardware cycle.

At $999, all this product really has going for it is the shrunken form factor. It's a lot of money to pay for a product that could just as easily have premiered in October 2008.

 

No, he's saying that graphics performance is more important than processor performance. Newer isn't always better, and this is one of the cases where Apple had to make a choice I'm sure they didn't want to make. Of course they wanted to use an Arrendale CPU, but it wasn't in their best interest to make the new MacBook Air have a weaker GPU than the old one. At least it has an SSD standard, which not many notebooks can claim. Also, the 320M and the GT 335M it's based on were both introduced this year, so no, it couldn't have been made in 2008.

Again, DO RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING WILD, IRRATIONAL, EXTREMELY BIASED CLAIMS. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious that even if Apple had given up graphics performance for an insignificant increase in processor performance, you would still be complaining. All that you're doing is derailing the topic with false, biased claims because you hate Apple and NVidia. Please, just leave, or get some informed facts and unbiased opinions.

 

Yes, it's expensive. We get it. Yes, the form factor is its principal - but not only major feature. Most CULV notebooks don't have as powerful graphics. Most CULV notebooks are thicker. Most CULV notebooks are plastic. Most CULV notebooks have awful trackpads. Most CULV notebooks have worse build quality. Most, not all.

All other CULV notebooks run Windows.

With a Core series ULV (stop calling them iCores) Apple would have been forced to use Intel's integrated graphics AND a discrete GPU. Intel's HD graphics ARE NOT SUFFICIENT for Cupertino's intent. Got it? There's more to life than 1080p video. Both the operating system and applications are becoming increasingly reliant on GPU acceleration, to a point.

Enough bickering. If you guys have new arguments pro or con, feel free to post them, but stop rehashing the same thing over and over.

 

I'm also interested. Apple has really done something unique with the Air's SSD. Only one of it's kind! Did you guys catch the upgrade SSD that made Engadget the other day? 256GB PhotoFast SSD replacement! And the package contains a USB enclosure to put your old SSD into, essentially becoming a giant flash drive! It even contains a Sandforce controller!!!

 

While this upgrade looks cool, I am not really sure I really like this age of specially-made SSD that Sony opened the flood gate with their Z. Without some common "shapes", it's hard for different manufacturers to assess the upgrade market and offer competing products. So, you may have only one upgrade option, but it may be so expensive that you might as well CTO it initially with the OEM.

 

We have been seeing mini pci-e ssd's around for a while but i would say that Apple has no doubt brought things to another level.

 

For all the advanced technology packed into this beast, its pretty disappointing that Apple's QC still hasn't become as 'cutting edge' as their designs.....

 

2010 MacBook Air owners reporting logic board and display issues -- Engadget

 

O_O That looks like VBIOS issues. Maybe a firmware update will solve that. Regardless, that is the absolute fastest I have EVER witnessed a notebook startup. It literally takes my phone longer than that to boot!! Matter of fact, my Sony point-n-shoot doesn't even start up that fast!!

 

Boot times have improved very significantly with Windows 7 and the latest Linux distros as well. Keep in mind that a SSD also should improve boot times dramatically.

As far as the current reliability issues, they might be hardware related. Apple probably doesn't have the reliability to offer a standard 3 year warranty, something that's expected for most high end business quality PCs. In this respect, the MacBook line is far behind HP's high end Elitebook and Dell's Latitude/Precision lines.

Apple has a good reputation, but the reality is a bit more complex. I've seen Apple Stores where people are waiting in line, not just for sales, but for service issues. The service queues are so long that I've actually seen Apple Store employees attempting to service a MacBook outside of a store.

 

The Passmark database contains a lot of false entries.

My Core i3 330um got about 1300 points. On my SU4100 I got 1073 points, that's a 1.3GHz 2MB cache.

SU9400 is 1.4GHz cache and 3MB cache it should get around 1200 points.

 

I have to agree with this statement. I love macs and I also use PC's (Just for the record). I LOVE my Macbook Pro. But Apple really could have premiered the technology like this back in late 2008/2009. Maybe they wouldnt have had the tech to make it as thin as it is now, but this is more like what the Macbook air should have originally. It would have been FAR more successful than it was. And I worked for Apple for 2 yrs so i know how UNsucessful the air was. Sales were awful. I dont think the SU9400/9600's are bad processors but they should have been put in the machine a long time ago.. and by now Apple should have been releasing this with the new i3.
Fair enough that the Core2Duo's are the only ones that will support the Nvidia GPU's but I think putting an i3 in the laptop with an INtel HD Gpu would have been a better move. "Overall" system performance would have been better. And thats what is really important here.

 

I bought the new Air 11'' a few days ago. This is my first Mac after a long list of Windows machines (desktops and laptops). Granted I am still learning the new OS, I can honestly say that for my needs this is the best computer I have ever used. Extremely snappy for everyday tasks, extremely portable, instant on/off for all practical purposes, and with a build quality that is several orders of magnitude above whatever I have seen anywhere else. I thought my carbon fiber sony was well constructed, but it simply cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with the MBA in terms of design, ruggedness and overall feel. This thing barely gets warm even after hours of use and it is dead silent - I have yet to feel or hear the fan (not that I have been in a completely silent room though). Oh, and let's not forget this beautiful enormous track pad it comes with and works brilliantly. Overall a very mature product.

Could I get a machine with a faster processor and more ram with the same amount of money? Sure I could. Would this buy me a faster and in general better computing experience? After having used Windows machines for so many years I highly doubt. Am I on the verge of becoming a fanboy? I don't know, but if I am completely satisfied I don't see the reason why I shouldn't...

One thing I know for sure. I have ceased being an Intel fanboy - measuring everything computer related in terms of the MHz of the processor. Give me less bloat, better software optimization and integration and I give you the extra MHz any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just my $.02 of course

 

For a similar price as the Air you could also get an Acer 1830T with Core i7 and Sandforce SSD. Under medium / heavier usage it will scream past the Air, except for GPU dependent tasks.

The strength of the Air lies in other areas. The screen quality, build quality and touch pad are light years beyond Acer's in my opinion.

For the record, I own both Acer 1830T and MBA at the moment.
_____________________________________________________________

Notebookjournal posted several benchmark results and measurements:
http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests...ews-apple-macbook-air-11-6-mc506d-a-nkst-1226

 

Yes, you are right about the Acer. So, when it comes to raw performance you need to distinguish between CPU and GPU intensive tasks. Which are more prevalent in everyday use? I guess it depends on the user so we cannot be absolute about it.

But, I think at some point we need to see past the raw CPU performance. What about poorly written software, bloatware, unnecessary services running in the background, antivirus running there as well, driver issues ect? Don't we waste cpu cycles there? I used to be a vaio p owner (first gen. 1.6 atom with 64gb ssd) and my miserable experience taught me an important lesson: It's not the specs, it's the implementation. I spent money to buy a 1.6 processor that most of the time was operating at 800mhz due to heat issues. Even with a processor that has such low energy requirements, vaio p could not dissipate heat properly because of its small body and the less than optimal drivers.

Come now to the Air. Minuscule body with zero heat issues. Ho do they do it? Is it only a matter of brilliant hardware engineering? Is it a matter of software? Is it both? I guess the latter.

Which brings us full circle to the beginning of my post. What we experience from a computer is the result of so many different factors - not simply the cpu. So if someone needs an ultra-portable machine I would highly recommend to pay a very close look at the MBA. Imo it is a superb, very mature product that will pay back its asking price and then some...

 

I prefer to compare the 11.6" Air with 11.6" competition. I can understand a Vaio P with 1.6GHz Atom will give poor performance. It has to do with both specs and implementation in my opinion.

OS X or a clean install Windows 7 work equally fast and well for me. The problem is that many Windows notebooks come with a lot of bloatware. If people don't remove this they get mediocre performance.

About the heat of the Air, the 11.6" Air was measured at 48 degrees C. For comparison, the Acer 1830t with core i5 was measured at 42 degrees C.

Notebookjournal mentions aggressive CPU throttling on the new Air. The CPU clocks down to 800MHz under extreme loads, to avoid over heating.
Google Translate

 

Yes of course, all Intel processors support throttling - the question is how often the machine crosses the threshold to trigger it. I referred to the vaio p not because the atom is weak (it is...) but as an example of how often the machine would reach the threshold and trigger throttling.

There is also another more subtle issue. We are comparing different platforms here, not just different hardware. No matter what processor/ssd the Acer has, it will never cold boot in 15 sec. Same thing holds for various other aspects. For example, the bundled s/w (iLife ect) is surprisingly good and runs very fast (I am still learning). For many users some of these programs may replace much heavier alternatives, which also "boosts" performance.

In any case, I don't think there is a clear winner here, but if someone is looking into the MBA category he should at least try it first before judging in terms of raw cpu numbers.

 

The fact that Intel CPUs support throttling is besides the point. The Air throttles down up to 43% under stress. That's not something that all notebooks do. The Acer 1830t for example doesn't.

The Acer is helped by the fact that there's a lot more airflow possible of course, due to the thicker chassis.

The 15 second boot time of the Air is mainly caused by the SSD. My Acer 1830t boots in about 12 seconds with a Kingston V+ SSD. Add about 4 seconds for BIOS post and it's the same as an Air.

Don't get me wrong I like the Air a lot but as with every notebook there are downsides. Especially people that plan to do a lot of CPU intensive tasks should consider alternatives.

 

Oh, yeah. OS X boots quick on the Air thanks to the SSD. Windows 7 can boot pretty much just as fast. I've also used notebooks which, when paired with an SSD, respond from sleep as quickly as the Air - i.e., by the time you get the lid up. That SSD is central to the Air's performance. It's not a bad thing, it just is what it is.

 

Another case of Apple's marketing tricks fooling the customer into thinking that OS X offers something that other OS's can't.

Trust us; the SSD is the only reason it's so fast. You could easily get the same results with any other OS. You' are a bit right about the CPU cycles, but OS X also has background services; it just has a few less of them. Unless you're using a Pentium 4 or an Atom, it's a moot point.

 

Apple has never billed the MBP as a business machine. More of a high-end consumer machine, and so it is expected to fall behind the Elitebook/Probook and the Latitude/Precision line in terms of warranty. The MBP is to Apple as what the ENVY is to HP.

Also, the reason the queue lines are so long at the Genius Bar is because people like instant gratification. Most of the time the genius at the bar can fix software issues pretty quickly without having to send the notebook off. Leaving a notebook at the Apple Store for service is also a little faster... trust me, I know. Apple's mail in service doesn't take very long at all, compared to the other companies (Dell & HP).

 

I don't want to enter contest here, but how come you assume I have never used a pc with a ssd in my life? This "trust us" mentality my friend sounds so funny - a 12year old talking, that feels the need to use "us" instead of "me"...

Anyways, I haven't been able to make my Win7 machine boot from cold in 15 secs, but I don't doubt the claim of the friend above - it is not like I have tested every ssd on the planet. Nor have I tested the energy consumption of the sleep state between 7 and X. It would be interesting to see some numbers. Because instant-on boils down exactly to this: how energy efficient the sleep state really is.

 

YouTube - windows 7 64bit fastest boot OCZ VERTEX II

here is a 14-17 second one and I know of members on the forums being faster yet

an 8 seconder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnkOORJc-xo&feature=related

 

^^ Really impressive, but I guess it is not just because of this insanely speedy OCZ drive, is it? I mean, can you do this without any tweaking?

 

What does energy efficiency have to do with it?

And that's a serious question. I'm not doubting you, but I want to know how that works.

 

Because instant on is achieved by entering a state of sleep from which the machine can exit almost instantaneously. If sleep requires significant amount of energy to be sustained, then its practical value is minimal. Take the extreme example: when the machine is fully booted and operational. Trivially you have instant on there but it is not practical, because in order to sustain such a state you need significant amount of resources.

We may argue that both an X platform and a Y platform recover from sleep in .5 sec. But the X killed 20% of the battery while staying asleep, whereas the Y machine only 5%. Even though both recovered at the same time, they are not both equally "instant on" if you excuse my expression. It is recovering from sleep in relation to how much energy you lost during sleep that matters

 

Well, sort of. You're sidestepping the idea of reducing the power draw while maintaining the speed of sleep state reversals.

Given that Apple has been pretty conservative lately with battery life estimates, I'm inclined to believe their 30 day sleep claims, which would make it pretty efficient compared to some laptops.

 

Ugh... Arrandale seems to have that effect on everyone. I can't wait for Ivy Bridge. 22NM... yessir.

 

Actually, this is exactly what I am trying to say (you said it more concisely than me ). Talking about instant on without saying how much the machine can stay at that state of sleep is vacuous. We cannot read into Apple's claims on instant on without considering the 30 day period that comes along with it. How long can a windows machine, with a comparative battery, stay asleep? Let's see some numbers and then we can discuss about the speed of this OCZ drive...

 

While I see your point, who's going to leave their laptop in sleep mode for that long in the first place? I mean, I guess that technically makes it "better," but if I don't need that type of power saving, does it really matter? It's like buying a six-core gaming desktop to surf the web. The only real purpose of it is "we have this and you don't!" Really, I think that the speed itself is what really matters (unless the power consumption is something totally ridiculous). It's impressive and it shows Apple's one and only true advantage over the competition (hardware/software integration), since it would be much harder for an OEM to make the changes to Windows necessary to compete directly.

On the flipside, if an OEM were to get even half that amount, it would kill a bit of the "wow" factor for Apple...