USB 2.0? Really?


andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,326
379
Boston, MA
13" and 15" only have 2 USB ports now.... 17" still has three though
i thought the 15" always had only 2 USB ports?

i more surprised that the SSD prices didn't come down. still 650 bucks for 256GB.

all in all an update as expected. no need to upgrade but nice if you are going to buy anyway.

+1. Why does everyone want this so badly? The use case is very limited.
because in three years you want to have a USB 3 port because all accessories will have one.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
i thought the 15" always had only 2 USB ports?

i more surprised that the SSD prices didn't come down. still 650 bucks for 256GB.

all in all an update as expected. no need to upgrade but nice if you are going to buy anyway.


because in three years you want to have a USB 3 port because all accessories will have one.
Hmm, you're right, my bad. Thought they had three but looks like they only had two anyway
 

m85476585

macrumors 65816
Feb 26, 2008
1,222
4
I'm not upgrading because there is no better option for fast disk access on the new models.

USB2: ~35MB/sec
Firewire 800: ~77MB/sec

My 1TB external drive: ~110-130MB/sec over eSATA. Currently I use an extremely buggy eSATA expresscard. If the new MBPs had either a USB/eSATA combo port, USB3, FW3200 (not likely), or LightPeak (I'm hoping for this one in the next update), I would upgrade. Without even an expresscard slot, a new 15" would be a downgrade for me.

I like the higher screen resolution on the 15", but that alone isn't enough for me to spend $1000 on an upgrade (since my current MBP is worth about $1000 if I sell it)
 

vipergts2207

macrumors 68020
Apr 7, 2009
2,068
2,447
Columbus, OH
cmon apple...

2.0?
This thread is hilarious. You obviously have no clue. Had you done an iota of research on USB 3.0 you would see that Intel will not be supporting it until 2011. How you see this as Apple's fault I have no idea. :confused::rolleyes: Same thing with people complaining about C2D in the 13" MBP. Apple had 3 choices. Use i3/5 and crappy Intel integrated graphics, use i3/5 and discrete GPU's like the higher end MBPs (this would have been cost prohibitive on the 13" MBPs though) or use C2D and much nicer nvidia integrated graphics. None of those choices are as good as what Apple probably really would have like to have done which is i3/5 and integrated nvidia GPUs, but Intel would be to blame for that one.
 

m85476585

macrumors 65816
Feb 26, 2008
1,222
4
This thread is hilarious. You obviously have no clue. Had you done an iota of research on USB 3.0 you would see that Intel will not be supporting it until 2011. How you see this as Apple's fault I have no idea. :confused::rolleyes: Same thing with people complaining about C2D in the 13" MBP. Apple had 3 choices. Use i3/5 and crappy Intel integrated graphics, use i3/5 and discrete GPU's like the higher end MBPs (this would have been cost prohibitive on the 13" MBPs though) or use C2D and much nicer nvidia integrated graphics. None of those choices are as good as what Apple probably really would have like to have done which is i3/5 and integrated nvidia GPUs, but Intel would be to blame for that one.
It doesn't matter if Intel supports it. Apple could add a dedicated USB3 chip, which probably wouldn't cost them a whole lot. How do you think MBPs support Firewre, Ethernet, and Audio?

I think Intel is clearly delaying support of USB 3 in the hopes that they can get Lightpeak ready soon. By not adding USB3 on their own, it looks like Apple is supporting Intel's move. That's fine since LP is tecnically superior to USB, but in the mean time, can't we at least get a combo USB/eSATA port?
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
It doesn't matter if Intel supports it. Apple could add a dedicated USB3 chip, which probably wouldn't cost them a whole lot. How do you think MBPs support Firewre, Ethernet, and Audio?

I think Intel is clearly delaying support of USB 3 in the hopes that they can get Lightpeak ready soon. By not adding USB3 on their own, it looks like Apple is supporting Intel's move. That's fine since LP is tecnically superior to USB, but in the mean time, can't we at least get a combo USB/eSATA port?
The last time I checked a USB 3.0 controller ran somewhere in the $3-6 ballpark.

It's even more crippling when USB 2.0 is going to be the fastest general purpose external I/O bus you're going to see for a computer you're buying in 2010. An eSATA/USB port would be a god send.

FireWire 800 is sadly very 2003.
 

m85476585

macrumors 65816
Feb 26, 2008
1,222
4
so worry about it in 3 years??
If most computers don't have USB 3 ports (which would happen if every computer company worked like Apple), there wouldn't be any USB accessories because no one would be able to use them, except in backwards-compatibility mode, which would be pointless. Computers need to support it before accessory makers will, and it makes more sense to pay a bit extra for USB3 on a $2000 computer to "future proof" it than on a $20 mouse, since you are likely to keep the computer for a lot longer.

Apple used to innovate with their computers, doing things like adding Firewire 800 and dropping the floppy and optical (in the MBA at least) drives ahead of the curve.

These days they are only reacting to trends. When they dropped FW on one model (I don't remember which one), they claimed that it was because "most camcorders now support USB2). They haven't dropped optical drives or even made them optional in the MBP line yet, even though the space could be used for another hard drive or a larger battery. They dropped expresscard because they claim "most cameras use SD, and few users use expresscard".
 

Alvi

macrumors 65816
Oct 31, 2008
1,202
307
Mars
Really? i guess your iPod/iPhone has 3.0, most of the HDD's have 3.0, i understand you want it to future-proof it but some say 3.0 won't even be the thing, and since MacBook Pro's get updated every other day i guess the next gen or the other gen will have 3.0 or lightpeak


EDIT: Ad really? future proof it? MacBook Pros last 3 years because of Apple care, than they breakdown and fixing them is as expansive as a new computer, and that's said by a MacBook Pro owner
 

KingYaba

macrumors 68040
Aug 7, 2005
3,415
12
Up the irons
If you're putting that money in a Macbook Pro you bet I'd like to have USB 3.0. These are machines I would expect to use for several years and USB 3.0 devices will surely come during this Macbook Pro's lifespan.

An eSATA/USB port would be a god send.
No kidding.
 

BittenApple

macrumors 6502a
Nov 29, 2008
999
499
I came and read this for the lulz. Thanks OP, like pointed out before Intel is not even supporting 3.0 until next year.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors 604
May 28, 2005
7,986
535
Pennsylvania
Yeah, and they're so close together you usually can only use two at a time. :(
That's one of the reasons I don't like the UMBP (besides the hideous colors). My MBP has a single USB port on the left, and a single USB port on the right. Now a computer this expensive should have 3 or 4 USB ports, but at least I can use both at the same time :apple: FTW

Oh yeah. And on topic, any $2000 computer should have USB 3.0 by now. Especially when computers 1/2 the price of the MBP have USB 3.0 and Blu-ray