|
|
New MacBook Pros! (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
How do you figure? It has a Mini-DisplayPort now — I'd expect Apple to replace all the MDPs with Thunderbolt in short order. If they leave two identical-looking connection types in their lineup, it's just going to cause confusion.
Thunderbolt would also be an excellent way to compensate for the Air's spartan port complement.
I figure because the motherboard is already incredibly crowded, and that factor proved big enough that the Air stayed with a Core 2 rather than put an extra chip on the motherboard in the last revision. Of course, Intel might have a new PCH down by that time, but I wouldn't count on it.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm sure their engineers will find a way. As Sierra said, Apple needs to get this on the consumer machines ASAP in order to avoid repeating the same mistake they made with FireWire and trapping the technology in a niche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Agreed. But I'm currently finding it difficult to understand the adoption path Apple envisions. Have any PC motherboard makers said anything about the standard yet? I didn't anticipate that there wouldn't be an option to add the port through a PCIe card. That's very disappointing, although I understand why that's the case.. But until the large chip is better integrated into Intel's standard chipset, I assume adoption will be slow. It may become a standard used by the high end but basically ignored by the mainstream.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
...But until the large chip is better integrated into Intel's standard chipset, I assume adoption will be slow. It may become a standard used by the high end but basically ignored by the mainstream.
IMO Apple already owns enough of the high end graphics/music laptop market to bring solid Thunderbolt adoption all by itself. For those of us bottlenecked by i/o (which is most creative pros) Thunderbolt is a very, very expedient technology - - and it reduces Apple's need to build ports.
Apple can market against other firms competing for the creative pro market segment by showing 2x the i/o bandwidth of USB 3. Creative pros are a market very sensitive to i/o bandwidth issues because i/o limitations have been driving us all crazy for years. And creative pros are opinion leaders as well, always a good group to have in your camp.
Adoption on the low end probably will be slow (after all the low end does not need i/o bandwidth) but Apple may not care, because Apple will never be the low end, and Thunderbolt may be a good way to differentiate that consumers can see.
LaCie has already announced a RAID Thunderbolt drive clearly marketed at mobile creative pros. I am not a LaCie fan, but the language of their PR in the announcement is illustrative:
LaCie Thunderbolt SSD.
-Allen Wicks
(
Last edited by SierraDragon; Feb 28, 2011 at 03:39 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
IMO Apple already owns enough of the high end graphics/music laptop market to bring solid Thunderbolt adoption all by itself. For those of us bottlenecked by i/o (which is most creative pros) Thunderbolt is a very, very expedient technology - - and it reduces Apple's need to build ports.
Apple can market against other firms competing for the creative pro market segment by showing 2x the i/o bandwidth of USB 3. Creative pros are a market very sensitive to i/o bandwidth issues because i/o limitations have been driving us all crazy for years. And creative pros are opinion leaders as well, always a good group to have in your camp.
Yeah, but you could just as easily be describing FireWire with those two paragraphs. I think Apple will want Thunderbolt to do better than FireWire in the market, and I'm sure Intel will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ham Sandwich
|
|
Actually I think Apple wants Light Peak to do better than Firewire... they don't have the optical fiber connections in the new MBP yet, but that's not keeping me from ordering one. Seems like the industry is so much more dependent on USB than Firewire... but both are large connectors/plugs. I want to see if they can make Thunderbolt (actually, Light Peak) connectors as robust as USB connectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Yeah, but you could just as easily be describing FireWire with those two paragraphs. I think Apple will want Thunderbolt to do better than FireWire in the market, and I'm sure Intel will.
Agreed, but even FW3200 is not nominally more than double USB 3. And the status of the real-world performance of computers is such that creative pros are positively _ripe_ for a new connectivity promising to solve their i/o problems - and first available from Apple.
The high end world will flock to Tbt. The low end Win world may pick up Tbt but only if it is a cheap way to provide i/o. I have no clue as to the cost metrics of Tbt versus USB choices (realizing that USB 2 is adequate for the low end) but it would be cool if someone who does could comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Assuming that USB3 stays in the corner, Thunderbolt will likely fare better than FireWire, assuming Apple doesn't abandon it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
That's easy: low-voltage dualcore Sandy Bridge, integrated graphics. Thunderbolt possible but not likely. Backlit keyboard possible.
I would love to see a backlit keyboard on the Air. I am still confused as to why they held out on this on current gen.
I am loving the scores sandybridge is getting. oh no"P" you are getting me to refer to the "secret intel" codenames
|
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
Agreed, but even FW3200 is not nominally more than double USB 3.
FW800 was nearly double than USB 2.0 though, and usually well over double in practice. Look how that turned out.
Speed alone isn't going to win this battle. Apple and Intel need to be aggressive with Thunderbolt for it to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andrej
Actually I think Apple wants Light Peak to do better than Firewire... they don't have the optical fiber connections in the new MBP yet, but that's not keeping me from ordering one.
Apparently the connector is the same. The conversion to optical will happen in the cable itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
For the first generation that supports optical, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I gathered that every generation will - the protocol and connector stay the same, as (I repeat myself ) the conversion happens in the cable itself.
Current ports won't benefit from higher speeds, but the primary advantage of optical is longer runs, anyway - and I assume those should be achievable.
2m is pretty short - too short.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, but once optical cables are the norm, I expect that they'll build the optical transceiver into the port in order to be able to use cheaper cables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, I want an 11" MacBook Air with Thunderbolt (preferably with Firewire over Thunderbolt too), 7-8 hour battery life, and a backlit keyboard.
I just came back from a conference and I ended up taking my el crappo Acer 11" Win 7 machine instead of my 13" MacBook Pro, because the Acer is much lighter than the MBP and has a very long battery life too. So far I can't get myself to replace the MBP with an 11" Air because of the Air's limitations.
P.S. HTC has already trademarked Thunderbolt. I wonder if Apple is paying them off or what, just like they did for iPhone with Cisco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
HTC has trademarked Thunderbolt as a electronic communications protocol?
Or is it just a completely unrelated trademark that is of no concern?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
HTC has trademarked Thunderbolt as a electronic communications protocol?
Or is it just a completely unrelated trademark that is of no concern?
It's an electronic device - a phone.
I was of the understanding that it doesn't have to be the same product. For example, if someone tried to sell a bicycle under the brand "Coca-Cola" you can bet your grandmother the Coca-Cola Company would go after them... and most likely would win.
However, I see on HTC's website it's "™", which is an unregistered trademark, whatever that means legally in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Its also a term that has long been in common usage. Different rules apply in such cases I believe. If I wanted to advertise something with the phrase "Its as fast as a thunderbolt" that would be fine, "Its as good as Coca-Cola" would land me in trouble.
Microsoft are disputing Apple's attempt to trademark 'App Store' on common usage grounds.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
It's an electronic device - a phone.
I was of the understanding that it doesn't have to be the same product.
AFAIK (IANAL): It doesn't, but for a dispute to be valid, you have to either have registered the appropriate category, or plausibly argue consumer confusion.
That was the case with the iPhone trademark, but here, I don't see a danger of confusion. The name itself has been in common use since the 1940s - my first association was the Republic Aviation P-47 "Thunderbolt"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Yes, but once optical cables are the norm, I expect that they'll build the optical transceiver into the port in order to be able to use cheaper cables.
That would mean yet another connector, though - negating one of the strongest point of this new tech.
It would also mean more complex/expensive controllers (PLUS you'd have to offer backwards compatibility with copper sockets), which would increase the price of devices and the complexity for manufacturers.
I'm hoping 2m copper as standard, extendable with a Thunderbolt repeater, and optical or CAT5 for longer runs (like running a MADI line from the on-stage computer to the DSP rack and digital mixer 80 feet down the aisle at the FOH).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
AFAIK (IANAL): It doesn't, but for a dispute to be valid, you have to either have registered the appropriate category, or plausibly argue consumer confusion.
That was the case with the iPhone trademark, but here, I don't see a danger of confusion.
You're probably right (and IANAL either), but nonetheless I suspect some companies would sue anyway to try to extract a few bux out of Apple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug
...I suspect some companies would sue anyway to try to extract a few bux out of Apple.
I think not. Unless you are as big as MS you have to have a very good case to make a legal battle with Apple worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
I think not. Unless you are as big as MS you have to have a very good case to make a legal battle with Apple worthwhile.
Or be suing in the Eastern District of Texas.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
That would mean yet another connector, though - negating one of the strongest point of this new tech.
Not necessarily. The original connectors Intel used, if I'm correctly informed, were just USB connectors with some optical lanes added. There's no reason they couldn't add optical to the MDP connector and end up with something compatible with both types of cables. The price of the controller might go up by a few bucks, but I'd take that over having to buy $25 cables.
Plus, Intel's stated that they're going to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah - thanks for that.
Seems like actual optical transceiver on silicon has a long ways to go, though - cost is going to be a major hurdle for quite some time.
And if Intel offers optical cables for longer runs before then, they may never see the Light of Peak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Yes, but once optical cables are the norm, I expect that they'll build the optical transceiver into the port in order to be able to use cheaper cables.
But by then we'd probably be looking at a ThunderBolt 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
Ah - thanks for that.
Seems like actual optical transceiver on silicon has a long ways to go, though - cost is going to be a major hurdle for quite some time.
And if Intel offers optical cables for longer runs before then, they may never see the Light of Peak.
I don't think it's that big a deal, really. Look at USB 3.0 — it has a new connector. As long as they engineer the new connector so that the old plugs will still fit into the socket, it should be fine.
After all, it's not as if the optical cables aren't going to need some copper running alongside them for power anyway.
Originally Posted by Brien
But by then we'd probably be looking at a ThunderBolt 2.0.
They may change the version number. A change of that magnitude would certainly warrant it. My guess is that they'll go all-optical for the planned 100 Gb/s variant, as I'd be quite surprised if they managed to get that kind of speed over copper wires. I don't see what difference a version number makes for the feasibility of such a thing, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, the FW400 -> 800 transition was less painful than I thought it'd be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Brien
Well, the FW400 -> 800 transition was less painful than I thought it'd be.
Did you expect any stress?
One of the totally awesome things about Firewire is that it was designed from day one for backwards compatibility and peaceful coexistence of different-speed devices on the same chain.
Thunderbolt looks to be similarly flexible, except MUCH more versatile (assuming Apple/Intel didn't botch this first implementation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
AI has an interesting note: New MBPs with SSD ship with TRIM support.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
Did you expect any stress?
Not personally, but I remember the ruckus the connector change caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
AI has an interesting note: New MBPs with SSD ship with TRIM support.
Hardmac adds an even more interesting note: TRIM support is for SSDs which identify themselves as "APPLE SSD" ONLY
Apple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just ordered a 17" with the 128 GB SSD and will replace the optical drive with a 750 GB OWC 7200 rpm hard drive. I decided to go with Apple's SSD for the warranty year because SSD for OS & apps is new to me, and I want any SSD-related issues that may crop up to be clearly all-Apple.
Next year with some SSD experience and with 10.7 on board I can rethink the configuration. Aperture is my demanding app.
-Allen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
Hardmac adds an even more interesting note: TRIM support is for SSDs which identify themselves as "APPLE SSD" ONLY.
I saw that. I'm sure the OSX86 crowd will have removed that restriction in about two weeks, if it isn't already gone in 10.6.7.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't imagine them not making TRIM support universal, that would be terrible!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
TRIM support is universal in Lion, so it seems likely that the version in the new MBPs is locked down due to lack of testing.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah. Sensible.
I hope you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ham Sandwich
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
I just ordered a 17" with the 128 GB SSD and will replace the optical drive with a 750 GB OWC 7200 rpm hard drive.
I might do that when mine comes in. But how do you replace the optical drive with a hard drive? Do you have step-by-step directions, and can it be done easily on the 15" MBPs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status:
Offline
|
|
Google Optibay, you're paying about 100 bucks for a bracket to put the SSD in, and then putting the SSD in, so just tack 100 bucks onto whatever your SSD will cost. (I wish someone would do the bracket for cheaper but that's the best I've heard of.) You'll wanna put the SSD in the optical drive bay, as opposed to where the HDD goes simply because even if the SSD isn't in super tight, there's less of a worry from it bouncing around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
The optical is on 3Gbit SATA.
The main drive is on 6Gbit SATA III.
You want the SSD on the fast bus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Currently, there are only two SSDs that support 6 Gb/s SATA — the Crucial C300 and the Intel 510 series. If you have any SSD other than those, it doesn't matter which SATA bus the drive's on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah - interesting info. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yah! (I totally didn't know that, I thought they were on the same bus!)
Btw, after Googling Optibay I found out that Amazon has a bunch for 17 bucks! I think I might just order mine just incase they sell out at those prices! ... either that or I can realize that not that many people plan on doing this so I shouldn't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 7, 2011 at 05:52 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually, looking at those videos, I'd recommend that you definitely do use the optical slot for the SSD and not the hard drive if the SSD isn't a 6 Gb/s-capable model. The regular hard disk slot holds a drive much more snugly, which may help a hard disk last longer, but not an SSD, as they're not susceptible to damage from sudden movement the way an HDD is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status:
Offline
|
|
So I got my 2.7Ghz i7, and this machine is insanely fast!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by pat++
Not an issue on my 2.7 13" i7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
It'll be much easier if you just comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Read the update - Anand's testing shows that turbo boost is clearly active. Since idiot Engadget isn't linking to the reviews that claim turbo boost is not active, it's hard to investigate.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|