Apple Releases 17'' MacBook Pro

[Multimedia]

Dual Channel Architecture Doesn't Help Speed Much

Re: Dual Channel Architecture Taking Advantage of Two of the same ram sticks in MBP:

In the real world, it makes little difference. Barefeats.com shows that it's about 3% increase on the MBP when using two sticks.

Thanks for the heads up Blade. Found the report quote from the page linked above from his post:

"April 20th, 2006 -- Matched Memory Pairs make your Intel Mac Faster. Some of you were asking whether you would gain any speed using matched memory pairs on your Macbook Pro, Intel Mac or Intel mini. In our testing, iMovie renders were 3% faster with matched pairs. Our Photoshop CS2 MP actions ran 6% faster with matched pairs."

 

[faintember]

i simply don't want to use it [USB] for hard drives and audio interfaces.

AMEN! Anyone that has used USB for either of those tasks and still denys the importance of FW 400 or 800 needs mental help.

 

[aussie_geek]

great idea but...

, copy my application folder and document from my iPod to the MPB

you will be able to copy your documents over but you will have to install your software manually. some software puts its files in other places as well - check your application support folder in your library



aussie_geek

 

[BladeAZ]

Re: Dual Channel Architecture Taking Advantage of Two of the same ram sticks in MBP:Thanks for the heads up Blade. Found the report quote from the page linked above from his post:

"April 20th, 2006 -- Matched Memory Pairs make your Intel Mac Faster. Some of you were asking whether you would gain any speed using matched memory pairs on your Macbook Pro, Intel Mac or Intel mini. In our testing, iMovie renders were 3% faster with matched pairs. Our Photoshop CS2 MP actions ran 6% faster with matched pairs."

The real answer is that RAM is cheap enough that it should be a prize in breakfast cereal. There's no reason to not max out these machines, they can only benefit from it. Even with the standard gig of RAM in the 2.0MBP, it doesn't take much to experience pageouts.

 

[Multimedia]

FW800 Envy or Blowback or Backlash ? A Brief FireWire History Lesson

why do so many people who don't use FW800 enjoy talking about how obsolete it is?

i USB caught on because it is cheap and good enough. it is not the better standard, but it is cheap enough to use with keybboards and mice and printers, so it get recognized and favored. but FW is a better standard. 400 is better than usb2 for high speed and large transfers. it has a high sustained transfer speed, uses less CPU resources, and delivers more power. for video and audio, it offer isochronus mode, which guarantees even transfer at certain speeds

but USB HAS ITS USES i simply don't want to use it for hard drives and audio interfaces.

Thank you Surreal. There seems to be some sort of FW800 Envy or Blowback or Backlash going on here. Maybe it's because early adopters of the MacBook Pro are still trying to rationalize that missing port as something they will never miss? I for one consider the missing FW800 port on the 15" MBP a HUGE BLUNDER on Apple's part and I would miss it dearly. The idea that FW800 is not mainstream is like saying that Tofu Bergers blow compared to Whoppers. The vast majority of devices don't use - can't use more than the bandwidth of FW400. That is why it is more popular. Not because FW800 is somehow screwed up due to a connector snafu in the engineering phase of development.

Firewire History Lesson

Hell FW800 didn't even exist for the first 4.8 years of FW400's life - since January MacWorld Expo SF in 1999. We didn't even get a FW800 port until the Fall of 2003 because the standard took that much longer to get finalized. IE FW800 has been available as a port on Macs for LESS TIME (2.6 years) than FW400 was TO DATE (4.8 years) when FW800 ports first appeared in the September of 2003. We're 7.3 years into FW400 and 2.6 years into FW800 (one third the time) - hardly enough time to tell if the 800mpbs standard is "DEAD" or not. Hell, the Applecare on my original FW800 PowerBook G4 from back then hasn't even expired yet. We're talking way too soon to declare anything dead but single sided floppies and some here would take issue with that.

 

[Multimedia]

Max Out Your RAM People!

The real answer is that RAM is cheap enough that it should be a prize in breakfast cereal. There's no reason to not max out these machines, they can only benefit from it. Even with the standard gig of RAM in the 2.0MBP, it doesn't take much to experience pageouts.

Amen to that Brother Blade. And a hallelujah to boot. I'm driving with 6GB in the Quad and still experience what must be pageout logjams with Safari all the time. I was simply trying to help everyone max out their ram for the lowest possible cost. If Omni is cheesy, they certainly don't provide any ram that I know of that doesn't perform correctly.

 

[macidiot]

It's obviously something that will need to be addressed pretty soon. I wonder what the blowback is going to be from early buyers of the 15" model when they do lower the price.

What, first adopters get screwed on pricing? No way.

 

[AidenShaw]

use the mail too

copy my application folder and document from my iPod to the MPB, and act like it's been mine for months..

Be sure to use FedEx/DHL or the mail to ship the literature and spare parts back - you don't want the customs man to find your "New MacBook Setup Guide" in your luggage

 

[daveL]

In reading through the new 37 page April 2006 17" MBP Technology Overview White Paper - downloadable from the Apple Site, they say that when you have two of the same size ram sticks in the MBP it runs faster than if you only have one, taking advantage of the system's Dual Channel Architecture. So not only do you initially save $100 off the price of a single 1 GB stick configuration, you get more speed than you would have while waiting for your Omni pair of 1 GB sticks to replace the two 512 sticks for only $46 more than the SLOWER single stick stock config - total $146. So you save money and get a faster MBP to begin with. It's a miracle.

According to this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=4

the dual-channel only helps if you are using integrated graphics. YMMV.

 

[macidiot]

Amen to that Brother Blade. And a hallelujah to boot. I'm driving with 6GB in the Quad and still experience what must be pageout logjams with Safari all the time. I was simply trying to help everyone max out their ram for the lowest possible cost. If Omni is cheesy, they certainly don't provide any ram that I know of that doesn't perform correctly.

Try using Firefox. Safari memory management sucks hard.

Example... right now, Safari, with three pages open, is using 360MB real memory and 2.93GB virtual.

 

[daveL]

Try using Firefox. Safari memory management sucks hard.

Example... right now, Safari, with three pages open, is using 360MB real memory and 2.93GB virtual.

Try quiting Safari every now and then. I believe what you're seeing is pages being cached in memory. It would be nice if Safari had a preference where you could put a bound on memory cache size.

 

[peharri]

FW800 has been available as a port on Macs for LESS TIME (2.6 years) than FW400 was TO DATE (4.8 years) when FW800 ports first appeared in the September of 2003. We're 7.3 years into FW400 and 2.6 years into FW800 (one third the time) - hardly enough time to tell if the 800mpbs standard is "DEAD" or not.

I think the problem we're having is more with Apple than FW800. When Apple backed FW400, it backed it. It put it in everything. Even the iPod was Firewire based. It started to back FW800, then started to deprecate Firewire across the board. Some iPods don't have any FW support at all, and the "standard" iPod requires a proprietary cable that isn't bundled with the machine itself, if you want to use Firewire. A USB cable is provided instead.

Amidst all this, Apple then *drops* FW800 from the 15" Macintosh notebook when it converts to Intel.

I seriously think that if the DV cameras that have a USB option used a standardized protocol (USB has some devices standardized - HID (keyboards, etc), Bluetooth adapters, ACM (modems), Printers, and mass storage, but notably video is one still in need of a standard), Apple would probably drop Firewire from their consumer machines altogether.

And that sucks. Because it's a good standard. It deserves more support than its getting. Apple should be pushing FW800, not ignoring it.

 

[matticus008]

why do so many people who don't use FW800 enjoy talking about how obsolete it is?

Not obsolete. Low penetration due to low necessity. Digital cameras, interface devices, printers, current hard drive technology, flash drives, and a whole host of other peripherals don't even need all that FW400 has to offer. FW800 certainly has its uses and certainly isn't dead...but it's overkill for almost every "typical" purpose. That is why it hasn't caught on, and that is why doing away with the FW400 port that everyone uses is a stupid idea. Adapters are to expand functionality to a minority of customers--the majority should always be served with no extra steps.

i USB caught on because it is cheap and good enough. it is not the better standard, but it is cheap enough to use with keybboards and mice and printers, so it get recognized and favored. but FW is a better standard. for video and audio, it offer isochronus mode, which guarantees even transfer at certain speeds

FireWire is NOT the better standard for everything. It requires more hardware implementation, a licensing fee, and it has more limited scalability and a tendency to destabilize as bandwidth limits are reached. They're meant to serve different purposes, and for their intended uses, both work extremely well. FireWire could not possibly replace USB. USB furthermore also has isochronous transfer modes written directly into the transfer protocol--the FW ones are simply faster (at the expense of having multiple FW peripherals attached).

 

[fertz]

now what?

now what am i going to do with my powerbook G4 17'' 1.67 GHz, 1.5 GB, 100 gb hard drive, and the iSight?????

damn!!!!!

if any one is interested in buying mine, well, here i am i can send you pictures!!!

 

[eVolcre]

now what am i going to do with my powerbook G4 17'' 1.67 GHz, 1.5 GB, 100 gb hard drive, and the iSight?????

damn!!!!!

if any one is interested in buying mine, well, here i am i can send you pictures!!!

Ebay is your friend my friend ...

eV

 

[slick316]

I really like this new 17", specs are great and comparitive to others in price (priced one out at Dell, came out the same price, but it wasn't as cool )

But for me, I'm still holding out for a 15" MBP with a dual layer burner (its not like I use DL discs everyday, but the capacity is great for storage and I need to make use out of the nearly 50 DL DVD's I have).

So please Apple, give me a 15" MPB with a DL drive at the $1999 price point (tomorrow would be nice, lol)

 

[Surreal]

FireWire is NOT the better standard for everything. It requires more hardware implementation, a licensing fee, and it has more limited scalability and a tendency to destabilize as bandwidth limits are reached. They're meant to serve different purposes, and for their intended uses, both work extremely well. FireWire could not possibly replace USB. USB furthermore also has isochronous transfer modes written directly into the transfer protocol--the FW ones are simply faster (at the expense of having multiple FW peripherals attached).

I know that. that is why i said it has it's uses. printers, mice, keyboards and other things that need information sent in short bursts do FINE with USB. it is cheaper to implement and has smaller chips.

i suppose i should have figured that usb had isochronus transfer, since quite a few audio interfaces carry usb...but (and i knoww this is slightly opinionated) i can't think of one that doesnt blow hard.

but...i realized, in looking at my post, that i seem to bash USB. it isnt bad; for what it is goood at. i simply HATE the fact that it is being favored for things it isnt good at. especially the ipod. but i tell you what, apple SHOULD have dropped 400 ports. then people either buy cables or new drives. there is the market penetration.

 

[charris]

Please indulge a newbie her question: Does anyone know the record for the most posts in a Mac Forums thread?

I diligently read pages 1-23 of this thread (I'm not sure if I'm proud or ashamed of this), but I apologize if someone else posted a similar question in the last 5 pages or so.

 

[matticus008]

but...i realized, in looking at my post, that i seem to bash USB. it isnt bad; for what it is goood at. i simply HATE the fact that it is being favored for things it isnt good at. especially the ipod. but i tell you what, apple SHOULD have dropped 400 ports. then people either buy cables or new drives. there is the market penetration.

Oh, I didn't think you were bashing USB per se; just like I wasn't bashing FW800 when I called it more or less useless for the average customer. FW800 is great and really makes life easy for professionals with high-end, high data rate peripherals who can use it now. It's just that by the time typical computer users begin using it; FireWire will be outdated as a protocol.

Unfortunately, you can't just force market penetration on people. Killing the floppy wouldn't have worked if you had to do more than stop buying floppies and start buying blank CDs. Killing legacy ports only happened because you got the KB/mouse with the computer and sales of legacy printers were almost nonexistent. FW800 doesn't offer anything of value to most people--their peripherals won't work better or faster, and they'll have to mess around with adapters or put down money for new cables for nothing. Forcing something on customers requires that they feel they're getting something of value out of it--they're not interested in taking on inconvenience for the benefit of a small group.

 

[daneoni]

Please indulge a newbie her question: Does anyone know the record for the most posts in a Mac Forums thread?

I diligently read pages 1-23 of this thread (I'm not sure if I'm proud or ashamed of this), but I apologize if someone else posted a similar question in the last 5 pages or so.

Highest i've seen is when the 12" & 17" PowerBooks were realeased with...i think that went up all the way to 1070 posts.

That is a lot of posts

 

[Photorun]

Please indulge a newbie her question: Does anyone know the record for the most posts in a Mac Forums thread?

I diligently read pages 1-23 of this thread (I'm not sure if I'm proud or ashamed of this), but I apologize if someone else posted a similar question in the last 5 pages or so.

I think the Intel announcement hit 2000, it hit 1000 in the first day and two out of three times to even try to post gave you a "server too busy" message.

 

[Di9it8]

Firewire vs usb

AMEN! Anyone that has used USB for either of those tasks and still denys the importance of FW 400 or 800 needs mental help.

I was copying a 10 gb file took 9 mins to firewire drive and 3hrs to usb drive,
thats why I always use firewire

 

[Multimedia]

USB2 HD Throughput On MacIntels And Better Than On PPC?

I was copying a 10 gb file took 9 mins to firewire drive and 3hrs to usb drive. Thats why I always use firewire

I wonder if the USB2 drive performance is radically better on MacIntels. I know what you mean about how slow they are on PPC Macs. Anyone working with them on a MacIntel here?

 

[matticus008]

I was copying a 10 gb file took 9 mins to firewire drive and 3hrs to usb drive,
thats why I always use firewire

That's not a USB 2.0 transfer, then. At USB2 speeds, that transfer would take about 11 minutes.

I have a USB/FW external hard drive, and I just copied a 9GB file (closest I had available) in 9:26 on the USB 2.0 connection. The FireWire 400 connection took 8:22. Same drive, same enclosure, same computer.

 

[081440]

FW 800.... again

Not obsolete. Low penetration due to low necessity. Digital cameras, interface devices, printers, current hard drive technology, flash drives, and a whole host of other peripherals don't even need all that FW400 has to offer. FW800 certainly has its uses and certainly isn't dead...but it's overkill for almost every "typical" purpose. .

But what do you consider typical? What's wrong with having a higher speed for a HD. I will never buy an external HD again that does not have FW 800. (they cost about the same as a FW 400 and they always have FW 400 ports on the back along with USB2 in some cases) The speed of FW 800 is akin to an internal drive. Does it matter that the transfer is sooo fast that the transfer window barely has time to appear before disappearing again. NO! Everyone should embrace FW 800, it's so fast and there is nothing wrong with it!

(just wish the iMac and MBP 15" had it....)


I hope the people trashing it have actually used it before... somehow I think they haven't