Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

It's a fairly strange comparison.

It's hard to compare PC and Mac hardware because part of the Mac value proposition is Mac OS X. If you're not going to run that I would have to ask: why buy a Mac?

Anyway as for comparison of tech specs:

- The X1 uses a higher power CPU (up to 2.7 GHz dual core i7, the 13" MBA tops out at a 1.8GHz dual core i7);

- The MBA has better battery life;

- The MBA has a higher-res display;

- The X1 can have 8GB of memory and the memory and HD are, I assume, user-replaceable (I can't recall if they're soldered on or otherwise not replaceable on the MBA);

- Size/weight (MBA is almost a pound lighter);

- The X1 seems to have 1 USB 3.0 port, which is nice. The MBA has Thunderbolt;

- SSD storage on the MBA goes to 256GB on the MBA, up to 160GB on the X1, although this may well be user-upgradeable;

- Pricewise the MBA I think does edge it out, which is kinda amazing. The X1 with i5/128GB SSD currently specs out at about $1700. Price will vary considerably with offers and coupons.

I have the 1.7/256/13" MBA and love it but I run OSX not Linux on it.

Specs:

X1: http://shop.lenovo.com/us/ww/pdf/X1_datasheet.pdf

MBA: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html

> It's hard to compare PC and Mac hardware because part of the Mac value proposition is Mac OS X. If you're not going to run that I would have to ask: why buy a Mac?

Some people have no desire to use OS X, but the Air is an extremely nice piece of hardware at an awesome price. Except possibly for some ridiculous luxury models in a totally different price range, nothing similar is available from other manufacturers yet.

And no, the X1 is not even remotely similar. I don't understand why this article seems to think they make for a good comparison.

Yup. Win7 on latest MBA right here. Loving it.

To many people (myself included), any current generation processor will do. Processors are not the bottlenecks any more for most applications.

I believe the SSD on the MBA is technically user replaceable, but it's a weird proprietary format (which some enterprising manufacturer may have cloned, not sure). Sadly the RAM is soldered; the 4GB cap is the blocking issue for me on considering one (thank you, Eclipse).

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Aura_Pro_Express

Doesn't swapping to an SSD should make supposedly 4GB of RAM acceptable? I don't use Eclipse (Dog forbid, I'm an IDE hater) but I can't fathom it needing more than 4GB of RAM. Heck, I run 2 virtual machines, Firefox and my editor on my 2 GB MacBook.

I forget the SSD assist, but I'd have to see it in action before I put cash on it. Eclipse was tolerable with 4 on my last years MBP, but doubling made a world of difference.

> It's hard to compare PC and Mac hardware because part of the Mac value proposition is Mac OS X. If you're not going to run that I would have to ask: why buy a Mac?

I brought a Mac as I wanted a POSIX compliant operating system with a good battery life and flawless and fast suspend. Linux was unable to provide that for me.

I thought it interesting that the author didn't mention the 50% increase in clock speed in his "only buy the X1 if..." section. If you need clock speed, then the X1 has much more to offer in that arena.

If clock speed is a primary concern, you probably don't want an ultraportable. It's one of the tradeoffs with having a smaller, more portable machine. Sure, some will do better or worse, but if you NEED the extra processing power, there are better alternatives. For ultraportables, a good-enough processor is usually good-enough.

If clock speed isn't a primary concern... why bother upgrading the CPU in the first place? Why not just go with stock?

You are right, that is quite an omission on my part. Just note that the higher clock speed isn't a priority in _my_ books and brings lower battery life which _is_ a priority for me.

... so why upgrade the CPU if it's a net detriment to you?

I was going for full specs in the comparison.

... but still, why upgrade the clock speed if it's a net detriment to you?

If you're making the comparison for yourself, why up the clock speed unecessarily, if you know it causes problems for you?

If you're making the comparison in general, then it's not really an excuse that you were doing it for yourself to omit the benefit of the significantly faster clock, particularly since you're drawing attention to the negatives of it (shorter battery life)?

Please don't interpret this as a serious attack or anything, I just find it a little odd.

The upgrade I chose for the MacBook Air still includes a power-efficient CPU, probably with the exact same TDP rating, just a slightly higher clock rating. This will most likely not increase the power drain, depending on what task your putting it to.

The biggest advantage of choosing a Mac over a PC is that it's the only machine on which you can develop apps for all the important platforms.

This. Macs are the only short/medium-term future proof machines right now. I use Windows 7 on a new Macbook Air 13" for my daily stuff but dual boot to OSX to work on iOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com