Where these tests done with the Nvidia 9400M on the MacBook vs 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro? If not the latter then why would there be a difference? Also, you need to switch into 9600M GT mode in order to even take advantage of it in the first place. Did they take that into account?

What's the point of being able to run Final Cut Pro without a FireWire port? Anyone that needs to perform any DV editing is going to need to spend the extra $400 for the firewire port on the MacBook Pro.

I'm very happy to see this. I was going back and fourth between the 2.0Ghz and 2.4Ghz models. I finally ordered the 2.0ghz and bumped the memory to 4Gb. Since I placed the order I was second guessing myself, wondering if I should have gone for the processor speed rather than RAM. Now I know I made the right call.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What's the point of being able to run Final Cut Pro without a FireWire port? Anyone that needs to perform any DV editing is going to need to spend the extra $400 for the firewire port on the MacBook Pro.

Many consumers have or will purchase the newer generation HDD or flash-based AVCHD camcorders which output via USB2. In fact, many are USB only. I n those cases, a Macbook is a very capable machine.

Quote

acdc1174 wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What's the point of being able to run Final Cut Pro without a FireWire port? Anyone that needs to perform any DV editing is going to need to spend the extra $400 for the firewire port on the MacBook Pro.

Many consumers have or will purchase the newer generation HDD or flash-based AVCHD camcorders which output via USB2. In fact, many are USB only. I n those cases, a Macbook is a very capable machine.

Many haven't or won't, what about them? Apple is less and less about choice...

How much would it have cost them to leave it in? Without factoring in the iTunes Store sales angle, of course...

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

acdc1174 wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What's the point of being able to run Final Cut Pro without a FireWire port? Anyone that needs to perform any DV editing is going to need to spend the extra $400 for the firewire port on the MacBook Pro.

Many consumers have or will purchase the newer generation HDD or flash-based AVCHD camcorders which output via USB2. In fact, many are USB only. I n those cases, a Macbook is a very capable machine.

Many haven't or won't, what about them? Apple is less and less about choice...

How much would it have cost them to leave it in? Without factoring in the iTunes Store sales angle, of course...

You're right. Apple released new Macbooks so those old ones out there just suddenly stopped working. Those that didn't have one and have older cameras WILL have too either step up to the MBP to support i, or get a new camera. Those are the breaks. Apple has NEVER been about a wide variety of choice. Apple has ALWAYS been about a narrow selection that works well together. Old camera + new Macbook = Not a good combo. Newer camera + new Macbook = perfect pairing. Of course, the other choice is to get a Windows laptop with Firewire support...

Please spare us all the righteous indignation as if Apple purposefully set out to piss off or screw the public at large. Firewire never got the widespread CONSUMER adoption we all (myself included) would have liked. How much would it have cost them to keep it in? Probably a few dollars per Macbook. Multiply that out by the number of Macbooks they will sell and it will be millions of dollars. You don't think it is a big deal and that Apple should just eat it, because it is not your money. Funny how that works. It is not Apple's responsibility to support your FW camera, FW hard drive, or FW audio interface in every new product they release...ESPECIALLY if your accessory wasn't made by Apple.

Apple has given it a good effort in getting Firewire adopted. It will continue on in its pro lines. But Apple has historically forced consumers to give up legacy technologies. this really is no different. The floppy disk and SCSI had their ardent defenders too.

They now sell the white macbook and its got the port you seek.

But if the macbook had firewire, why would people buy pros?

I agree with all those people saying Apple should still support older hardware. I mean, I have a bunch of older Apple mice and keyboards that no longer work because Apple updated to USB and dropped the old ADB port.

I understand what is being said here. But at some point things have to change. It happened with Classic support. It happened with ADB support. Firewire just happens to be next on the firing line for elimination.

Yup, to the point. Exactly what I thought... I can?t stand everyone?s whinig about waht Apple has or has not done and whether that?s right or not. They?re doing an excellent job with their products and if you don?t like it: no one is forcing you to buy a new MB, are they? Just my 2 cents...

Quote

Guest wrote:
What's the point of being able to run Final Cut Pro without a FireWire port? Anyone that needs to perform any DV editing is going to need to spend the extra $400 for the firewire port on the MacBook Pro.

It's a shame that the comments to this article have been poisoned by more firewire whining. Afterall, what's the point in releasing a product that doesn't cater to "guests" specifications?

Back on topic for a moment, the performance increase in the new Macbook is pretty remarkable. It would seem to bolster the argument that the omission of firewire was to distinguish the consumer from pro lines.

Quote

sumtermug wrote:
I agree with all those people saying Apple should still support older hardware. I mean, I have a bunch of older Apple mice and keyboards that no longer work because Apple updated to USB and dropped the old ADB port.

I understand what is being said here. But at some point things have to change. It happened with Classic support. It happened with ADB support. Firewire just happens to be next on the firing line for elimination.

dont forget the iMac as the first computer to fully eschew the floppy drive

however, i am in the camp that it is too soon to scrap firewire, even on lower end machines

when apple scrapped ADB, USB was a well established standard with many peripheral devices available

when classic support was scrapped, OS X was in its fifth version and developers had not written anything new for it for at least a year

firewire is not dead, and many windows machines are starting to add it to their machines\

now, if USB 3 (and its purported 2.1 GBps speed) was out with user devices available and apple decided to adopt USB 3 instead of firewire then it would be okay

as it stands, firewire 400 actually has a theoretical max of 800 MBps and firewire 800 has a theoretical max of 1.6 GBps - values that USB cannot even come close to touching currently

the problem is that apple eliminated connectivity before something better became available - something they have never done in the past

TRO

Quote

randompro42 wrote:
the problem is that apple eliminated connectivity before something better became available - something they have never done in the past

I agree with you that FireWire is not obsolete technology, but remember that USB didn't just replace ADB; it replaced all previous ports, including SCSI. USB 1.0 was NOT an adaquate replacement for SCSI -- even less than USB 2.0 is for FireWire. There was no adaquate replacement for SCSI until FireWire came out, and FireWire did not make it to consumer machines for several years (though it was in the first rev of high-end machines that lacked SCSI). So it's not that Apple replaced SCSI with something superior, they just decided that SCSI was not that important for a consumer machine. Just like they're doing now with FireWire.

Now, the precedent doesn't make it any less annoying that they're moving backwards. You can certainly say that FireWire is not akin to SCSI, owing to the fact that it's not a pain in the rear to use like SCSI was. You could also argue that FireWire is more useful to the general population than SCSI was back then, or that the market is so different now that the comparison is moot.

Personally I'm annoyed at this move. I had been hoping that FireWire 800 would eventually make its way to the low-end machines, so it's disappointing to see them move in the opposite direction. It wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me, but it is a bummer.

Quote

galenb wrote:
Where these tests done with the Nvidia 9400M on the MacBook vs 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro? If not the latter then why would there be a difference? Also, you need to switch into 9600M GT mode in order to even take advantage of it in the first place. Did they take that into account?

The tests were done with the 9600M GT. From the linked article:

Quote

The graphics in the new MacBook Pros also saw improvement. When we switched from the 9400M to the MacBook Pro?s second GPU, the Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT, we saw an extra graphical push. The 9600M GT helped the 2.4GHz MacBook Pro get a respectable 58.9 frames per second in our Quak 4 tests. We?re currently running more graphics tests and will have a more in-depth report online shortly.

(The Quake 4 results in the graph are 58.9 fps, so clearly it was the 9600M GT.)

However, it looks like there was only one test that was really based around the GPU, and in that test (Quake 4 frame rates) the difference between the MacBook and MacBook Pro was still fairly wide, with the Pro delivering 52% higher frame rates. But the new MacBook offered 5x the framerate of the old MacBook, so the gap is certainly smaller than it was.

A lot of people are under the impression that all graphical tasks leverage the GPU, but this is not true. Photoshop CS3 is almost entirely CPU-based. I'm not 100% sure about Cinerama, Compressor, or iMovie HD, but I think they're mostly CPU-based, too. The numbers jibe with that theory -- even the old MacBook performs roughly up to par with the new MacBook Pro in those tests.

In response to above post acdc comment, "...Apple has ALWAYS been about a narrow selection that works well together..."=limited choice



Which is why Macs will never approach the market share everyone wants them to.

Also in response to acdc comment, "...You don't think it is a big deal and that Apple should just eat it, because it is not your money. Funny how that works..."

See, the funny thing is, it's a 2-way street and it is MY money and Apple won't be getting it right now as I pass on this new model round.

Those kinds of statements always make me shake my head, similar to things like "Oh, the President has unlimited powers, he can do what he wants". That's b*llsh*t, these elected officials work for US, not the other way around, if the majority of people disagree on something, the policy should change to reflect that. Go see "W.", a great movie, it shows a guy ruling with his gut and emotions instead of his head, similar to Stevo, it's all about him and to hell with evrybody else...

Quote

Guest wrote:
In response to above post acdc comment, "...Apple has ALWAYS been about a narrow selection that works well together..."=limited choice

Which is why Macs will never approach the market share everyone wants them to.

So a broad selection that doesn't work well together is what Apple needs to grow market share!

Quote

Sir Harry Flashman wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
In response to above post acdc comment, "...Apple has ALWAYS been about a narrow selection that works well together..."=limited choice

Which is why Macs will never approach the market share everyone wants them to.

So a broad selection that doesn't work well together is what Apple needs to grow market share!

Come on! I see what you did there. Past the cherry picking, it will really take more choice AND lower prices to do that...

Apple is increasing its market share at a high rate (unlike PC companies) while maintaining a good profit margin. It looks like Apple does not need your advice.

Quote

Extensor wrote:
Apple is increasing its market share at a high rate (unlike PC companies) while maintaining a good profit margin. It looks like Apple does not need your advice.

Apparently, they don't need anyone's advice. They obviously don't need many Aluminum MacBook without a firewire port potential buyer's money just now either and are for sure "...maintaining a good profit margin...".

Time will tell and indeed the market will decide.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Time will tell and indeed the market will decide.

And these new MacBooks will sell very well, because the average consumer doesn't give a fig about FireWire anyway.

A Firewire-to-USB adaptor costs a lot less than $400, but I'd agree, few people will want to run FCP on a MacBook (maybe FCE, but it's you're an FCP user there are other advantages, as well as Firewire, to the Pro).

What I am more interested in is if the standard new macbook is capable of running Final Cut Studio in it's entirety?

If it can run Motion and Final Cut Pro, I'm almost certainly in.

I'm guessing the new Nvidia graphics chip should mean it's possible, but does anyone know for sure?