Spennende, Johnny. Jeg veide for og imot med SSD en tid tilbake, fordi jeg var blitt fortalt at batteritiden forbedres på bærbare. Men som dette viser, så kan det faktisk gå gærne veien - sjekket nå om det også gjaldt OSX etter å ha sett innlegget ditt:
In a great follow-up to an already in-depth review, MacWorld reported that:
In terms of Speedmark, our battery of general-use tests, the base MacBook Air model scored a 124. The Macbook Air with the same hard drive but a 1.8 GHz processor improved to a score of 130. The model with both the 1.8 GHz processor and the SSD earned a score of 140. To put that in percentage terms, the [US]$299 processor upgrade improved the overall speed of the system by 4.8 percent, while the [US]$999 drive upgrade improved the speed by 7.7 percent. . .
[In terms of its battery], The MacBook Air with SSD showed a bit more life than the models with standard hard drives, though we didn't run our tests enough times to make a definitive statement about how much power savings, if any, might be attributable to the solid-state drive.
The always excellent ArsTechnica likewise published a follow-up comparing the SSD version to the HDD version, and regarding its performance and battery life found:
The SSD does worse in sequential disk tests and writing in general, but spanks the HDD in random disk tests and reading from the disk. . . However, one major difference I saw while using the SSD model is that it didn't suffer entire machine slowdowns when there was a lot of disk activity -- or at least less so than the HDD model. . .
When using the SSD Air in exactly the same manner as the HDD Air and running it down twice, I got an average of 2 hours and 31 minutes of battery life. That's... pretty bad, and two minutes lower than the HDD model. But this number is low because of the two extremes I got when running these tests. My first number was 2 hours and 52 minutes, and the second was 2 hours and 10 minutes. Incidentally, I did less during the second rundown than the first, since my cable service was down and I couldn't do anything on the Internet. I wrote a few paragraphs of this review and watched some TV shows stored on my drive.
If I optimistically decide to run with the first number -- 2 hours and 52 minutes -- that's a 29 minute (average) gain over the HDD's battery life. That's still not the massive gain that I had hoped for. [In the interest of full disclosure, Ars notes that some users have reported higher battery life numbers, and the site is looking into the matter.]