Firewire 800 Gone on MacBook!

bloopybone

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2006
1
0
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

macrumors 601
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

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,767
2,842
Sod off
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?
 

howesey

macrumors 6502a
Dec 3, 2005
535
0
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

macrumors 6502a
Dec 3, 2005
535
0
groovebuster said:
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

macrumors 68030
Jun 24, 2004
2,694
1,168
England
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

macrumors newbie
Jan 21, 2005
29
0
Firewire 800 and internal modem gone too!

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

macrumors 68000
Aug 8, 2005
1,956
4
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.
 

-Escher-

macrumors member
Dec 28, 2005
76
0
joepunk said:
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..
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
-Escher- said:
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-

macrumors member
Dec 28, 2005
76
0
epepper9 said:
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

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2003
2,437
1
The Dallas 'burbs
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

macrumors 6502a
Apr 22, 2005
713
0
atszyman said:
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

macrumors 68020
Sep 16, 2003
2,437
1
The Dallas 'burbs
Mac_Freak said:
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

macrumors 68020
Feb 3, 2004
2,215
0
Virginia Beach, VA
epepper9 said:
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

macrumors 68000
Aug 8, 2005
1,956
4
Heb1228 said:
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

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 11, 2005
1,937
21
Stuck in the middle with you
atszyman said:
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

macrumors 65816
Jan 27, 2005
1,241
0
One Endless Loop
Heb1228 said:
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

macrumors 604
Sep 11, 2004
7,921
0
Canberra, Australia
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

macrumors 65816
Jan 27, 2005
1,241
0
One Endless Loop
max_altitude said:
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

macrumors 6502
Sep 8, 2004
433
0
Boston, MA
atszyman said:
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:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.