[Skypat]

Hi
I have some questions about the new MacBooks. Maybe you can help me answer them :

1. How can you connect a video camera to the MacBook now that the firewire port is gone ?
2. The processors seem not to have been updated. They still talk about "Core 2 duo". Are they using the very latest crop from Intel ? Or did they just bumped up the bus speed (1066 Mhz) ?
3. I have the bad impression that the MacBook is much more expensive now. If we consider that the top of the line MB is replacing the black MB, well, it costs a few hundreds Euros more for minor technical differences (inside at least). What do you think ?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

[Big Mac]

1. It's a major blunder by Apple. Some modern camcorders support video over USB, but I would never want to rely on that. There's no reason why they couldn't have provided Firewire 800 on there. It's been around on Macs for many years now. I have very little tolerance for any excuses Apple will come up with.
2. They're the same processors as before with no MHz increase but rather a 100MHz cut on the entry level. Perhaps Intel is now suffering from the MHz curse. Apple would argue that the extra speed is provided by the better Nvidia int-degraded graphics circuitry and faster RAM I suppose.
3.Yeah, it looks that way.

[blackstar]

2. Updated FSB should provide a speed increase even though technically they less overall Mhz.

[Skypat]

I can't wait to see the speed tests

[slpdLoad]

Anyone else feel like we've hit the same wall we hit with PPC G5s? I mean I understand these are basically the best Intel chips Apple could be putting in (especially the MBPs and iMacs), but I hardly see the light past the 2.x-3.0 GHz mark. Intel roadmaps are one thing (and I am not terribly well informed in this area), but we've been on this dual-core 2.x Ghz mark for quite some time. I was expecting something a bit more exciting (quad-core anyone) on this latest Pro refresh.

[Scooterboy]

Dell and other PC makers are shipping Intel QuadCore laptops now. Not only with the latest Intel CPUs, but with BluRay and better and professional GPUs. I would have been far happier had the form factor remained the same but upgraded with equal hardware.
Hmm, I remember teh Steve telling us that now that the Mac is off PPC and on Intel, there'd be parity with the PC world. I guess it wasn't the chip makers holding back the Mac after all.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

Anyone else feel like we've hit the same wall we hit with PPC G5s? I mean I understand these are basically the best Intel chips Apple could be putting in (especially the MBPs and iMacs), but I hardly see the light past the 2.x-3.0 GHz mark. Intel roadmaps are one thing (and I am not terribly well informed in this area), but we've been on this dual-core 2.x Ghz mark for quite some time. I was expecting something a bit more exciting (quad-core anyone) on this latest Pro refresh.

I think it's a very different wall... We could blame IBM and Moto for not having a faster system... there is nobody to blame but Apple at this point. Intel make the chips for everyone... and we should have roughly the same hardware under the hood in terms of raw speed.

I've always been comfortable waiting a bit to catch up... but sometimes I wonder about Apple.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

Anyone else feel like we've hit the same wall we hit with PPC G5s? I mean I understand these are basically the best Intel chips Apple could be putting in (especially the MBPs and iMacs), but I hardly see the light past the 2.x-3.0 GHz mark. Intel roadmaps are one thing (and I am not terribly well informed in this area), but we've been on this dual-core 2.x Ghz mark for quite some time. I was expecting something a bit more exciting (quad-core anyone) on this latest Pro refresh.

Intel isn't pushing clockrates too quickly, but they're pushing IPC, FSB, core, and cache improvements with Merom over Yonah, Penryn over Merom, and next Nehalem over Penryn.

[David Lee]

Without firewire, without a Diskwarrior update (that can take a LONG time), how do you diagnose, or repair a HDD in one of the new Macbooks? Yeah, besides removing the disk and hooking it up to another enclosure or adapter? Disk utility or even Applejack is just not enough at times. This seems to be the deal breaker for me, and I cannot afford the Macbook Pro either. Yet the new design is really attractive.

[Macintosh Sauce]

I went to the local Apple Store with my wife this evening. The new 2.0 MacBook is sweet and quite responsive when I compare it to my wife's black 2.0 GHz MacBook. For some reason I could not find a 2.4 GHz MacBook. ???

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by David Lee 

Without firewire, without a Diskwarrior update (that can take a LONG time), how do you diagnose, or repair a HDD in one of the new Macbooks? Yeah, besides removing the disk and hooking it up to another enclosure or adapter? Disk utility or even Applejack is just not enough at times. This seems to be the deal breaker for me, and I cannot afford the Macbook Pro either. Yet the new design is really attractive.

How often do you really use TDM? I hear lots of whining about the loss of FW on the MB, but to be honest, most of the people complaining don't seem to use it all that much or have other solutions available, such as a usb2 external drive.

I've owned macs for many years and I can count on one hand the times I used TDM

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Skypat 

Hi
1. How can you connect a video camera to the MacBook now that the firewire port is gone ?

If your camera doesn't have a usb port (and most current ones do) then you cannot. As Jobs mentioned, in a quote on this topic, all current and new cameras are usb not firewire. I'm not saying people don't have a need, but most who rely on fw do so because they are professionals and apple has the MBP for that market segment. By the same token, the FW port will be sourly missed but clearly the direction (like the floppy) is away from that interface for consumer electronics.

2. The processors seem not to have been updated. They still talk about "Core 2 duo". Are they using the very latest crop from Intel ? Or did they just bumped up the bus speed (1066 Mhz) ?

Apple is using the latest chip sets, they don't just buy the cpu from intel but the entire package and intel as the other poster mentioned has been focusing on other bottlenecks to improve performance. What good is a 3GHz cpu if you it moves data at 667MHz

3. I have the bad impression that the MacBook is much more expensive now. If we consider that the top of the line MB is replacing the black MB, well, it costs a few hundreds Euros more for minor technical differences (inside at least). What do you think ?

The improvements are many on this model. First and foremost is the exterior, more rigid and quite stunning. Inside you have a much fast FSB, and GPU. The GPU on older MBs have been much derided, Apple has listened and produced a small, light, sturdy laptop that is also much faster then its predecessor

[simonjames]

IMO the updated specs (additions and reductions) and the lack of a CPU speed increase does not equate to a $550 AUD or 19.6% price increase by Apple.

I was quite prepared to update my aging PowerBook G4 with a new MacBook this week (even got approval from my partner) but when I saw the whopping increase in prices and the so-so specs I've shelved the idea.

I might see if I can load the Mac OS on a competitor's quad core....

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Maflynn 

If your camera doesn't have a usb port (and most current ones do) then you cannot. As Jobs mentioned, in a quote on this topic, all current and new cameras are usb not firewire.

As I've said several times before, that is simply false. There are many current camcorders for sale today that REQUIRE FireWire for video transfer. They DO have USB but it is not used for video transfer on these camcorders.

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As I've said several times before, that is simply false. There are many current camcorders for sale today that REQUIRE FireWire for video transfer. They DO have USB but it is not used for video transfer on these camcorders.

But if you wanted one that worked with your MacBook, you'd - uh - buy one with USB and not Firewire ? I don't see your point.

You may also notice the MacBook lacks a Parallel Printer Port, an ADB connection, an RS-232.... at some point, you have to drop legacy connections and just move on. Your 2006 vintage camera will still work with your 2006 vintage Macbook. Your 2008 vintage camera will still work with your 2008 vintage Macbook if you're careful to buy compatible ones.

FWIW if you look at the motherboard photos of the MB it really doesn't look like they actually had enough room to fit a FireWire port on there. Arguably, they could have dropped Ethernet in favour of FireWire though....

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

But if you wanted one that worked with your MacBook, you'd - uh - buy one with USB and not Firewire ? I don't see your point.

The problem is that a lot of the consumer USB-based camcorders are low quality. For around the same price you can a tape-based one (which requires FireWire) with noticeably better image quality. I'm not saying the camcorders that require FireWire are necessarily always better, because they also have their own drawbacks. However, they also have advantages... which now cannot be realized on Apple's new iteration of its best selling laptop.

And guess what? Apple sells some of these very cameras on its own website.

FWIW if you look at the motherboard photos of the MB it really doesn't look like they actually had enough room to fit a FireWire port on there. Arguably, they could have dropped Ethernet in favour of FireWire though....

People keep using this argument, but it doesn't make sense. If you design something without FireWire in mind, you're usually not going to leave extra space in there in the design just because. However, if Apple wanted FireWire there they would have built it into the design. There're smart people after all, and I should point out the new MacBook has the exact same footprint as the old white, yet the old white is easily large enough to accommodate the extra port... because it was designed from the ground up to do so.

Don't believe the excuses. Apple CHOSE to get rid of the port. It wasn't a design problem. It was a marketing and bean-counter decision. No, I don't blame them for that. I'm just shocked that so many here are willing to believe that it was because Apple's engineers are too stupid to fit in another port in a new design even when the previous designs with the same footprint had that port.

[ASIMO]

Some of the folks here come up with the lamest excuses on behalf of Apple. A "design problem?" This is freaking Apple, right? The same engineering/designing wizards in the industry? Please. Why not sacrifice one of the USB ports for FW?

And as to those comparing FW to parallel ports, ADB, etc., an even more lame argument. Those technologies were superseded by superior technology, for one thing. Secondly, why is Apple even putting FW in any mac anyway at this point if it's a tech that's about to be shown the door? The next round of Macs better see the end of FW, right?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The problem is that a lot of the consumer USB-based camcorders are low quality. For around the same price you can a tape-based one (which requires FireWire) with noticeably better image quality.

Are you confusing the new generation of very low cost flash/USB camcorders (Flip, etc at $100-200) with camcorders in the same price range as HDV/Firewire camcorders? A $600 flash/AVCHD/USB camcorder (say Canon HF100) is on par with a $600 miniDV/HDV/Firewire camcorder (say Canon HV20) and offers the advantage of not forcing you to wait for realtime importing..

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Are you confusing the new generation of very low cost flash/USB camcorders (Flip, etc at $100-200) with camcorders in the same price range as HDV/Firewire camcorders? A $600 flash/AVCHD/USB camcorder (say Canon HF100) is on par with a $600 miniDV/HDV/Firewire camcorder (say Canon HV20) and offers the advantage of not forcing you to wait for realtime importing..

I was talking mainly about SD units.

However, it's interesting you should mention that. I've been reading more about AVCHD camcorders and the general consensus is that HDV camcorders in the same price range generally still have the advantage in low light fast motion scenes, as compared to AVCHD cams.

However, the general consensus also is that AVCHD is fast catching up, and that in full light, AVCHD is usually essentially as good as HDV.

So, AVCHD is far more convenient yes, but in 2008 still can suffer from some image quality issues in many of the lower priced units, when compared to HDV in the same price range. That said, many people won't care, because the convenience trumps image quality differences, especially if the differences are relatively minor in their eyes.

One could argue that in 2010 these image quality differences may disappear, and Apple is just looking to the future. However, it isn't 2010 yet, and Apple still continues to sell HDV camcorders on their website... which aren't compatible with the newest iteration of their best-selling computer to date. Similarly, Apple continues to sell FireWire audio devices on their website, and these FireWire audio devices are often connected up to MacBooks, if my musician friends are any indication, yet these units are not compatible with the newest iteration of their best-selling computer to date.

I understand Apple's choice to do this, and quite frankly I was expecting it to happen sooner or later, especially since Apple killed Firewire support on the iPods. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it though.

And ironically, it's not camcorders or audio devices that really bother me. It's the loss of FireWire target mode that bothers me.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ASIMO 

And as to those comparing FW to parallel ports, ADB, etc., an even more lame argument. Those technologies were superseded by superior technology, for one thing. Secondly, why is Apple even putting FW in any mac anyway at this point if it's a tech that's about to be shown the door? The next round of Macs better see the end of FW, right?

Well, the original iMac had NO replacement for the SCSI interface it no longer featured. (USB was arguably superior to the ADB port, though.) It was over a year before the first iMacs gained Firewire (and then, not on the entry-level model).

Also, there's a difference between "showing a technology the door" and relegating it to the professional market. Firewire is far from dead; it's just not as relevant to the market that Apple is obviously trying to reduce the 13" MacBook to.

[ASIMO]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Well, the original iMac had NO replacement for the SCSI interface it no longer featured. (USB was arguably superior to the ADB port, though.) It was over a year before the first iMacs gained Firewire (and then, not on the entry-level model).

Also, there's a difference between "showing a technology the door" and relegating it to the professional market. Firewire is far from dead; it's just not as relevant to the market that Apple is obviously trying to reduce the 13" MacBook to.

1. If my memory serves me correctly, the iMac had NEVER had SCSI interface to begin with. It was a brand new line that was seeing the sunset of SCSI at least as an external interface and the advent of a largely superior technology (FW) in the areas in which FW and SCSI overlapped. This new MacBook simply omitted a viable, pre-existing interface in an existing line without any viable replacement even in the near foreseeable future.

2. SCSI never had the consumer penetration that even FW has had when accounting for both Mac and PC platforms and the variety of peripherals that featured FW as an interface.

3. So you admit then that FW is not a dying technology that some are seemingly suggesting in defense of Apple's misguided move. It was then therefore a marketing move pure and simple to differentiate the MB and the MBP. That being the case, would it not seem more forgivable had Apple not introduced a 13" MBP that has FW and a better screen to split the difference between the top of the line MB and the bottom end MBP or simply have such a 13" MBP in lieu of the top shelf MB?

Man, if Windows weren't such a relative headache as platform, I wouldn't even be bothered enough to be a bit upset with the decision that Apple made. Eh...if PCs could run OS X as well as the converse, this would be a moot point altogether.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Cheers...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ASIMO 

1. If my memory serves me correctly, the iMac had NEVER had SCSI interface to begin with. It was a brand new line that was seeing the sunset of SCSI at least as an external interface and the advent of a largely superior technology (FW) in the areas in which FW and SCSI overlapped. This new MacBook simply omitted a viable, pre-existing interface in an existing line without any viable replacement even in the near foreseeable future.

Um, Apple has been doing all-in-one computers since, well, 1984. All the iMac's direct predecessors, including the G3 All-in-One, had SCSI. The iMac dropped it without providing an adequate replacement. I fail to see what you think you're arguing.

Originally Posted by ASIMO 

2. SCSI never had the consumer penetration that even FW has had when accounting for both Mac and PC platforms and the variety of peripherals that featured FW as an interface.

This is true to a degree, although any Mac user who had any external storage medium AT ALL - CD burner, external hard drive, Zip drive, etc. - had SCSI hardware.

Originally Posted by ASIMO 

3. So you admit then that FW is not a dying technology that some are seemingly suggesting in defense of Apple's misguided move. It was then therefore a marketing move pure and simple to differentiate the MB and the MBP. That being the case, would it not seem more forgivable had Apple not introduced a 13" MBP that has FW and a better screen to split the difference between the top of the line MB and the bottom end MBP or simply have such a 13" MBP in lieu of the top shelf MB?

"Admit"???

I am a musician. I own a studio. I DEPEND UPON FIREWIRE FOR MY DAILY NEEDS.

It's not going away anytime soon.

However, in the consumer market space, it is dead. Period. As far as I can see, there is no real dispute over this.

The big issue is indeed whether it's permissible marketing to force "pro" users to buy a larger machine than they'd like.

Edit: Just to clarify - we're in agreement, I think.

[molala]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Um, Apple has been doing all-in-one computers since, well, 1984. All the iMac's direct predecessors, including the G3 All-in-One, had SCSI. The iMac dropped it without providing an adequate replacement. I fail to see what you think you're arguing.

The iMac was a whole new computer. Maybe the G3 all-in-one was a very short lived and exclusively distributed predecessor. But before then, Apple had been making desktops and towers for years, they had stopped making all-in-ones, and nothing was introduced at $1299. The iMac was not a replacement for something with SCSI. It was a consumer-level desktop Mac, a whole new category for Apple when it was introduced in 1998. (You could say the older Performa line was similar but that was a lot more expensive and not all-in-one).

The same way the iBook was a whole new category for Apple (consumer level portable) a year or two later. The original clamshell had no firewire.

But pretty soon both these lines acquired firewire. And the most recent iMacs and Macbooks maintained firewire. To take firewire away now (without suitable replacement) cripples the Macbook line.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by molala 

The iMac was a whole new computer. Maybe the G3 all-in-one was a very short lived and exclusively distributed predecessor. But before then, Apple had been making desktops and towers for years, they had stopped making all-in-ones, and nothing was introduced at $1299. The iMac was not a replacement for something with SCSI. It was a consumer-level desktop Mac, a whole new category for Apple when it was introduced in 1998. (You could say the older Performa line was similar but that was a lot more expensive and not all-in-one).

This is really irrelevant to the Firewire argument, but you're quite wrong: Apple never stopped making all-in-ones.

Following the 128k, 512k, Plus, SE(/30), Classic(II), Color Classic, there was the Performa 520-588 series, and after that, the Performa 5XXX series (I actually owned a 5200). These latter ones were $2000 machines, though later versions, as the 53xx series, were available as educational models for less.

The Power Mac G3 All-in-One was an educational model that followed directly in the 5xxx series and was available for $1599, released in April 1998 and available concurrently with the iMac until January '99.

(All info verified per MacTracker.)


The revolutionary things about the iMac were a) gumdrop design, b) dropping of all legacy ports, which directly led to c) a (for Apple) low entry price-point. But the All-in-One concept never left Apple.

The iMac just finally made the single-box the basis of Apple's market identity again - the way it had been until Jobs left the company.



The iMac crippled the sub-$2000 machines with no adequate successor to SCSI, and it wasn't until the iMac DV that it was added back in.

I'm reasonably certain that in a year, we'll see MacBooks with eSATA built-in (once the bus-powered connector is standardized). Either that, or USB3 will be there for the consumer instead. Either way, the wait for an appropriate consumer-level Firewire replacement technology won't be long.