99.99999% positive they're on the same bus. I'd bet my life on it, in fact. You can add an additional Firewire bus via the Express card slot, which is probably what that person was talking about.DHagan4755 said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases 17'' MacBook Pro
- Thread starter Demon Hunter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
17" MacBook Pro Has Two FW Buses
There is no second FW bus on the iMac. On the 17" MacBook Pro there are separate FW800 and FW400 buses. One runs twice as fast as the other as long as you keep all the devices on it FW800. If you add any FW400 devices to the FW800 port it will throttle down everything to the FW400 speed. So you would run your camera in the FW400 port while you run your external scratch HD in a FW800 case hooked to that port. If money isn't an issue, the new Western Digital Raptor 150 GB drive in a FW800 case would be super fast in the editing-rendering phase of the video process.DHagan4755 said:
Based on what? The PowerBooks all had single Firewire buses and there's been nothing to suggest that the MacBook line is any different.Multimedia said:
Based On Nothing
Based on nothing. You may be right. So do you have to use only the FW800 port with only FW800 devices to get that 800mbps throughput? Once footage is captured at the FW400 rate from the camera, you can use only the FW800 drive hooked to only the FW800 port to get the faster throughput? I take it the two ports run into the same bus so if you use any 400 devices on the slower port, both ports run at 400. Is that right matticus008?matticus008 said:
My mind is a little fuzzy on what I read and where I read it...
But I thought I read that for video capture, esp. HD, that it was better to get the MacBook Pro because the iMac had two firewire 400 ports that shared the same bus, as if they didn't on the PowerBooks with FW 800 ports. Shared-bus FW ports are apparently not good for HD video capture throughput? Further that the MacBook Pro had ExpressCard/34 to add the Firewire 800 omitted making for a sounder choice in the HD video capture, editing, devices, realm. It doesn't specifically bother me per se. I just thought I would ask since I thought it was an interesting discussion relative to the Mac and HD video editing which is one of the things I believe the 17-inch MBP is aimed at.
But I thought I read that for video capture, esp. HD, that it was better to get the MacBook Pro because the iMac had two firewire 400 ports that shared the same bus, as if they didn't on the PowerBooks with FW 800 ports. Shared-bus FW ports are apparently not good for HD video capture throughput? Further that the MacBook Pro had ExpressCard/34 to add the Firewire 800 omitted making for a sounder choice in the HD video capture, editing, devices, realm. It doesn't specifically bother me per se. I just thought I would ask since I thought it was an interesting discussion relative to the Mac and HD video editing which is one of the things I believe the 17-inch MBP is aimed at.
I wish apple could do something like this spec wise that is. The color is ugly but 240gb and a fast gpu according to cnet the specs has my vote.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4660-10621_7-6513240.html?tag=vid&autoplay=true#mgallery
http://reviews.cnet.com/4660-10621_7-6513240.html?tag=vid&autoplay=true#mgallery
?!
anyone who complains about the weight of the 17" powerbook/macbook really needs to go to the gym...or somthing......seriously half the 15" pc laptops weigh more than the 17" macbook/powerbook
in addition you will not get a PC laptop with equal performance and 17" screen that will weigh less than the 17" macbook!!
aegisdesign said:
anyone who complains about the weight of the 17" powerbook/macbook really needs to go to the gym...or somthing......seriously half the 15" pc laptops weigh more than the 17" macbook/powerbook
in addition you will not get a PC laptop with equal performance and 17" screen that will weigh less than the 17" macbook!!
gaming machine
ok, dont get me wrong here, both the macbooks are great gaming machines. but i would like to add that there are certianly *better* gaming laptops out there on the market. although as i have stated already, you will have a hard time finding a 15" PC laptop that is 1 inch thin with dual core 2Ghz and a X1600 PCE video card. however, you will have a harder time finding a mac laptop with a 7800GT or X1800 (whatever floats your boat).
i understand that it would be extremely difficult to fit either of these high end cards in the 1inch form factor of the macbook. but who said apple needs to stick to thair old laptops (i.e 12"ibook, 14"ibook, 12"powerbook, 15" powerbook 17" powerbook). they could make a larger version of the macbook spcifically aimed at gamers (or anyone who wanted a mac for the good looks and OSX, but wasnt willing to sacrifice performance for the small (or thin) form factor)
this was sort of what i thought the 17" macbook would be, not nearly identical to the 15" in terms of performance just with a few extra little ports and a better burner for all the yuppies to pretend they need.
kkty
end of rant
ok, dont get me wrong here, both the macbooks are great gaming machines. but i would like to add that there are certianly *better* gaming laptops out there on the market. although as i have stated already, you will have a hard time finding a 15" PC laptop that is 1 inch thin with dual core 2Ghz and a X1600 PCE video card. however, you will have a harder time finding a mac laptop with a 7800GT or X1800 (whatever floats your boat).
i understand that it would be extremely difficult to fit either of these high end cards in the 1inch form factor of the macbook. but who said apple needs to stick to thair old laptops (i.e 12"ibook, 14"ibook, 12"powerbook, 15" powerbook 17" powerbook). they could make a larger version of the macbook spcifically aimed at gamers (or anyone who wanted a mac for the good looks and OSX, but wasnt willing to sacrifice performance for the small (or thin) form factor)
this was sort of what i thought the 17" macbook would be, not nearly identical to the 15" in terms of performance just with a few extra little ports and a better burner for all the yuppies to pretend they need.
kkty
end of rant
hello, i was wondering, since the speakers on the macbook pro 17" are bigger than the ones on the 15,4", will the sound be of better quality? thanks
I never really liked the idea of a 17" laptop, the MacBook Pro 17 along with my computing "habits" may change that.
Firstly I don't actually ever take my laptop with me anywhere, it's either on my desk or on my lap while lounging So the size isn't really an issue. Then you look at the price, and although expensive it is definitely better value than the 15.
mmmmm....
Firstly I don't actually ever take my laptop with me anywhere, it's either on my desk or on my lap while lounging
So the size isn't really an issue. Then you look at the price, and although expensive it is definitely better value than the 15.mmmmm....
edesignuk said:I never really liked the idea of a 17" laptop, the MacBook Pro 17 along with my computing "habits" may change that.
Firstly I don't actually ever take my laptop with me anywhere, it's either on my desk or on my lap while lounging
mmmmm....
You're getting one?
edesignuk said:I never really liked the idea of a 17" laptop, the MacBook Pro 17 along with my computing "habits" may change that.
Firstly I don't actually ever take my laptop with me anywhere, it's either on my desk or on my lap while lounging
mmmmm....
I have to agree.. these are looking more and more appealing... especially since my lappy just took a dump on me... although i was really hoping to see a bit of a price drop on the 15's... without it, the 17 is clearly the better purchase...
FW400 Is Fast Enough For HDV
On the 15" MBP you would connect the camera to the FW800 HD connected to the FW400 port with a FW800 to FW400 adapter or cable using another adapter for the camera unless the FW800 case also has a FW400 port on it - which some of them do. To edit with the faster FW800 speed on the 15" MBP you would need an Expresscard/34 FW800 card which is going to cost about $100-$150 more.
If by HD you really mean HDV then FW400 will be fast enough for capturing while recording. And if you capture while recording to the FW800 drive on the 17" MBP, then you can edit from that faster drive afterwards without an Expresscard/34 needed.DHagan4755 said:My mind is a little fuzzy on what I read and where I read it...
But I thought I read that for video capture, esp. HD, that it was better to get the MacBook Pro because the iMac had two firewire 400 ports that shared the same bus, as if they didn't on the PowerBooks with FW 800 ports. Shared-bus FW ports are apparently not good for HD video capture throughput? Further that the MacBook Pro had ExpressCard/34 to add the Firewire 800 omitted making for a sounder choice in the HD video capture, editing, devices, realm. It doesn't specifically bother me per se. I just thought I would ask since I thought it was an interesting discussion relative to the Mac and HD video editing which is one of the things I believe the 17-inch MBP is aimed at.
On the 15" MBP you would connect the camera to the FW800 HD connected to the FW400 port with a FW800 to FW400 adapter or cable using another adapter for the camera unless the FW800 case also has a FW400 port on it - which some of them do. To edit with the faster FW800 speed on the 15" MBP you would need an Expresscard/34 FW800 card which is going to cost about $100-$150 more.
Not yet, my 15" AlBook is still serving me well, as is my iMac G5. When the time comes to replace one or the other, the MacBook 17" may well replace them both.hob said:
Multimedia said:$2799 is frickin INexpensive! What Planet Are You On?
Makes the Refurbished 15" MacBook Pros look expensive. . .
Anyway I am wondering why you think $2799 is not a bargain MacKeeper? Please enlighten us with your wisdom. Should it be FREE? Or what? .
It is very very expensive !!! Look at HP, same hardware, but an ugly cheap design. does the aluminum case make the $1000 difference. Don't think so. In les than 3 years you are gonna replace it anyway.
Are the 17" MBP's in stores yet? I can't seem to find anyone talking about owning one yet. I'm just curious because I'm heading to Chicago this weekend and would like to pick one up while I'm there...a little better than ordering it
MacSardine said:Are the 17" MBP's in stores yet? I can't seem to find anyone talking about owning one yet. I'm just curious because I'm heading to Chicago this weekend and would like to pick one up while I'm there...a little better than ordering it
Not yet (or at least not at the stores around me). According to the guy at Apple I called and the guy at the Apple Store I called, both said they wouldn't have the 17" MBP at the stores until next week, at the earliest. They both said that ordering online would be quicker. I ordered mine the day it came out and it hasn't shipped yet..........I want it now!!!
Yeah, Apple told me it would ship this week to customers who ordered online and be in Apple Stores next week.ZigFilm said:
I noticed you ordered the MBP 17" with the 7200 100 GB HD. Is that supposed to be much faster than the 5400 120 GB?ZigFilm said:
A good 20 odd pages behind, but I wanted to post a reply.
People complain about the lack of a "true" laptop, and ask why oh why Apple! But its part of their incredibly clever strategy, the one they've flogged to death since the iPod. Market skimming strategy. When the iPod first came out it was close to $900AUD, and people who wanted it, would buy it. Now they slowly dropped the price to lure in as much people as they could at the higher price.
Now with these new laptops, they're unveiling the top of the line FIRST, because people just might not be strong enough to resist the temptation. And what if they can? Then you get threads like this which continue to enforce Apple in people's minds. This way they'll make more money, and later on they'll release the bread and butter laptops, which will open the floodgates, and when that happens, everyone will want one. Even people who have even bought a LARGER version (fooling themselves into thinking they want a true portable). So it's a win win strategy, as a long as Apple keep up the high levels of quality and build they've been known for.
And yes, they dont have DL and FW800 in the 15" because they're reserved for the 17" only (for now). Doesn't anyone remember the exact same strategy they pulled with the G4 laptops?
People complain about the lack of a "true" laptop, and ask why oh why Apple! But its part of their incredibly clever strategy, the one they've flogged to death since the iPod. Market skimming strategy. When the iPod first came out it was close to $900AUD, and people who wanted it, would buy it. Now they slowly dropped the price to lure in as much people as they could at the higher price.
Now with these new laptops, they're unveiling the top of the line FIRST, because people just might not be strong enough to resist the temptation. And what if they can? Then you get threads like this which continue to enforce Apple in people's minds. This way they'll make more money, and later on they'll release the bread and butter laptops, which will open the floodgates, and when that happens, everyone will want one. Even people who have even bought a LARGER version (fooling themselves into thinking they want a true portable). So it's a win win strategy, as a long as Apple keep up the high levels of quality and build they've been known for.
And yes, they dont have DL and FW800 in the 15" because they're reserved for the 17" only (for now). Doesn't anyone remember the exact same strategy they pulled with the G4 laptops?
I chose the 5400 because our Mac IT guy here showed me the difference between a laptop with 7200 and one with 5400. The 5400 ran cooler and used less battery, while the exact opposite was true with the 7200... it was a no brainer for me.
ZigFilm said: