PDA

View Full Version : Firewire 800 Gone on MacBook!




adk
Jan 10, 2006, 01:32 PM
The new MacBook Pros have gotten rid of firewire 800. so much for that Idea I guess...



groovebuster
Jan 10, 2006, 01:36 PM
For what do you need it anyway on a portable? Never got why people got so worked up about it...

groovebuster

bloopybone
Jan 10, 2006, 02:48 PM
I'm a sound engineer and do all my recording through a firewire interface...not the end of the world but, as macs are the standard for this kind of work, I think it's a shame the new laptops don't have it.

stoid
Jan 10, 2006, 03:09 PM
Honestly, that's the deal breaker right there, having only one FireWire port.

I'm really tempted to upgrade from my Rev A Aluminum 15 inch PowerBook, get the better proc/HD/graphics/SuperDrive but I need two FireWire ports. It's great that FireWire ports daisy chain, but not all devices do. I use my laptop as a desktop replacement, and I need to be able to plug in my 3G iPod and have my external drives at the same time. Yeah I can put the iPod at the end of the chain, but that terminates it and places undue limitations on my workflow.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 10, 2006, 03:40 PM
I never used FW myself so it doesn't really affect me.

But if they are going to to keep a FW port on their pro laptop, why not make it a FW800 port?

groovebuster
Jan 10, 2006, 04:30 PM
There are FireWire-Hubs...

groovebuster

howesey
Jan 10, 2006, 04:49 PM
Hey, another sound engineer here too.

I have noticed the iMac has been downgraded from Firewire 800 to 400. Which is kinda bad a in our studios we have four recording/edit rooms, thee have iMacs and one has a PowerMac. Upgrading the iMac's may be a no go (would like PowerMacs in the future in them anyway).

howesey
Jan 10, 2006, 04:51 PM
There are FireWire-Hubs...

groovebuster
Makes no difference, the bandwidth will still be 400Mbps, all you are doing is sharing the bandwidth out to all the devices connected to it.

Loge
Jan 10, 2006, 04:53 PM
There is plenty to like about the MacBook, but losing FW800 is a disappointment, and they didn't even add another USB port to make up for it. Adding hubs to a portable machine is tiresome to say the least.

rot@ti.org
Jan 10, 2006, 04:57 PM
I use Firewire 800 for backing up my PowerBook. I also need to use dial-up once in awhile. But the MacBook has no internal modem -- an external USB modem is a $50 extra.

Guess I'll have to lobby all my friends to install DSL and stop staying at cheap hotels that don't have wireless.

iEdd
Jan 10, 2006, 05:08 PM
It's a shame about FW800, the modem and the superdrives. DL superdrives can be plugged in with FW (400), modems and FW800 can be made with the card port. Still, internal modems in portables should be kept going for the next 15 or so years before dial-up is (finally) shoved.

joepunk
Jan 10, 2006, 05:24 PM
Since Apple droped FW800 I wished they could have added another USB port as a replacement.

-Escher-
Jan 10, 2006, 05:52 PM
Since Apple droped FW800 I wished they could have added another USB port as a replacement.
Agree!!!!!!!
My HP pavilion DV4000 has 4 USB ports!!! 3 would be reasonable..

MacRumorUser
Jan 10, 2006, 05:56 PM
Agree!!!!!!!
My HP pavilion DV4000 has 4 USB ports!!! 3 would be reasonable..


Yeah since no modem, they could have given us 1 more usb at least. Modem wasn't a shock though as theyve been removing it from all their products lately.

Battery life is my concern though...

-Escher-
Jan 10, 2006, 05:57 PM
It's a shame about
-FW800,
-the modem
-the superdrives.

FW800: don;t use it..don't need it...
The modem: well..for 39 bucks you can get a external one IF you eventually need it...
the superdrive: I really don't understand why they took it out!!!

One of the reasons for these changes could be the price! They took out some features, added others for the same price....

atszyman
Jan 10, 2006, 06:08 PM
Where is all of this data coming from? The sustained data bandwidth with a normal serial ATA drive is roughly 30 MB/s which is roughly on par with a FW400 port.

If you think you need FW800 you have to be pushing data out to a RAID array hanging off of the FW800 port and the data cannot ever pass through your local HD. If this is the case then you can bemoan the lack of FW800 otherwise FW400 should be sufficient for the data you are moving.

The fact that there is only a single FW port is a valid complaint however if you are pulling video off of a camera to an external drive since you are now stuck with one port to do the task (however if the hub is smart enough to basically connect the source directly to the disk then you don't have a problem here either).

Mac_Freak
Jan 10, 2006, 06:16 PM
Where is all of this data coming from? The sustained data bandwidth with a normal serial ATA drive is roughly 30 MB/s which is roughly on par with a FW400 port.

If you think you need FW800 you have to be pushing data out to a RAID array hanging off of the FW800 port and the data cannot ever pass through your local HD. If this is the case then you can bemoan the lack of FW800 otherwise FW400 should be sufficient for the data you are moving.

The fact that there is only a single FW port is a valid complaint however if you are pulling video off of a camera to an external drive since you are now stuck with one port to do the task (however if the hub is smart enough to basically connect the source directly to the disk then you don't have a problem here either).

I get up to 60MB/s (~55MB/s sustained) on my single drive configuration that I use as a scratch disk for my pro apps.

atszyman
Jan 10, 2006, 06:25 PM
I get up to 60MB/s (~55MB/s sustained) on my single drive configuration that I use as a scratch disk for my pro apps.

Even that only barely exceeds 400 Mb/s of FW400. In our testing at work we had a hard time breaking 50 MB/s on a single drive and were usually stuck closer to 30, but all of this was on Intel based boxes with Windows/Linux (We don't support Macs ... Yet).

We have noted massive inefficiencies in the Intel architecture when it comes to moving data in Memory so it's possible that some of these inefficiencies are still existent in the new Intel chips making FW800 a pointless endeavor since you'd never be able to saturate even half of the available bandwidth...

Heb1228
Jan 10, 2006, 06:27 PM
internal modems in portables should be kept going for the next 15 or so years before dial-up is (finally) shoved.

15 years? are you kidding? I guess they should probably have kept floppy drives on all the powerbooks too?

iEdd
Jan 10, 2006, 08:32 PM
15 years? are you kidding? I guess they should probably have kept floppy drives on all the powerbooks too?
It was (obviously) somewhat of an exaggeration. There are still plenty of places lacking a means of adsl though. Hotels generally have a (incredibly expensive) ADSL service, but smaller motels and holiday apartments don't. Most don't even have the possibility of lugging your own adsl modem up there.

adk
Jan 10, 2006, 09:17 PM
Where is all of this data coming from? The sustained data bandwidth with a normal serial ATA drive is roughly 30 MB/s which is roughly on par with a FW400 port.

If you think you need FW800 you have to be pushing data out to a RAID array hanging off of the FW800 port and the data cannot ever pass through your local HD. If this is the case then you can bemoan the lack of FW800 otherwise FW400 should be sufficient for the data you are moving.

The fact that there is only a single FW port is a valid complaint however if you are pulling video off of a camera to an external drive since you are now stuck with one port to do the task (however if the hub is smart enough to basically connect the source directly to the disk then you don't have a problem here either).



I'm not necessarily mad that it's gone, All I have for FW800 is one HD, and it can also use FW400. The reason I'm shocked is because Apple has been touting FW800 as the future.

MacTruck
Jan 10, 2006, 09:20 PM
15 years? are you kidding? I guess they should probably have kept floppy drives on all the powerbooks too?


Yeah say that again when you are out on business and your company puts you in a hotel with no hi speed access. OH CRAP!

kretzy
Jan 10, 2006, 09:23 PM
I can understand this would how and why this would annoy people. However I really don't think it's that bigger deal - I'm yet to come across anything able to utilise FW 800 anyway.

MacTruck
Jan 10, 2006, 09:26 PM
I can understand this would how and why this would annoy people. However I really don't think it's that bigger deal - I'm yet to come across anything able to utilise FW 800 anyway.

Well its not that big a deal for me as I have no firewire 800 anything. But firwire 800 is backward compatible with firewire 400. IMHO they should have axed firewire 400 and provided an adapter. Makes sense huh?

budugu
Jan 10, 2006, 09:27 PM
We have noted massive inefficiencies in the Intel architecture when it comes to moving data in Memory so it's possible that some of these inefficiencies are still existent in the new Intel chips making FW800 a pointless endeavor since you'd never be able to saturate even half of the available bandwidth...

Cost cutting! Period. Well apple has been cutting corners anyway... so a big surprise? :eek: :rolleyes:

maya
Jan 10, 2006, 09:29 PM
Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo.

Who cares, its FW800? As long as Apple did not get rid of FW400, which is widely used.

I have not seen too many products even use FW800, many of the products usually have USB 2.0, FW400 and FW800 support. So what is the point of adding it when its far more expensive then USB 2.0 and FW400. :rolleyes:

How many people who even own a Macintosh really use the FW800 port when compared to the USB 1.1/2.0 and FW400 port? :)

kretzy
Jan 10, 2006, 09:29 PM
Well its not that big a deal for me as I have no firewire 800 anything. But firwire 800 is backward compatible with firewire 400. IMHO they should have axed firewire 400 and provided an adapter. Makes sense huh?
I didn't know that, but it would make more sense and in the process keep everyone happy.

MacTruck
Jan 10, 2006, 09:31 PM
Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo.

Who cares, its FW800? As long as Apple did not get rid of FW400, which is widely used.

I have not seen too many products even use FW800, many of the products usually have USB 2.0, FW400 and FW800 support. So what is the point of adding it when its far more expensive then USB 2.0 and FW400. :rolleyes:

How many people who even own a Macintosh really use the FW800 port when compared to the USB 1.1/2.0 and FW400 port? :)


LOL! Say that to the people who spent big bucks on firewire 800 raid drives. :eek:

maya
Jan 10, 2006, 09:40 PM
LOL! Say that to the people who spent big bucks on firewire 800 raid drives. :eek:

Sucks to be them then. ;)

That being said, they current system still has FW800, too bad they cannot plug it into the new Mac or MacBook Pro. Well FW800 is not rendered out, we sill have to see what the PowerMac line has to offer yet.

I don't see what a RAID system will be good for in a portable or iMac. If you have that kind of money, buy the PowerMac. ;)

I have to get used to typing MacBook Pro, it doesn't roll off the tough as PowerBook. :(