[bynkii]

[quote name='moosensquirrel']
>

chuckstjohn said:

> I shoot primarily with a Hasselblad...The switch to 800 and dropping 400 is clearly a grave error on the part of Apple.

I have no use for FireWire 400 when moving photos around. It's too slow!! It's the FireWire 800 port on my MBP that gets used all the time for all big file transfers. There should be no problem with an 800 to 400 cable. Heck if I could afford a Hasselblad I don't think I'd even look at the 400 port with those size files.

As for the IT staff, it looks like bynkii wins again based on this quote just found at Ars Technica:

> Yes, without FireWire there is no Target Disk Mode. But for the majority of users who rely on that, which in my experience is IT staff, the drive is easily removed and put into an external case.

Dude, that's what netboot, netinstall and multicast ASR are for. Why would I image things the hard way, when I can be lazy, and get FAR more work done with FAR less effort.

[PAddams]

Tell me about daisychaining? Could I USB 2.0 from MacBook > external HD and then FW400 > DV Cam or DAC-100 (bi directional converter > video monitor). Would I be able to control the DV Cam? If I used FCE would it not be more powerful on a new MacBook as opposed to my 2004 12" PB? What about the USB 2.0 > FW cables seen on eBay? Same questions - control DV Cam? DAC-100?

[bynkii]

Mikeinla said:

{quote}bynkii wrote
Get bigger drives or a USB hub. You're not running 5/6 drives off of FW power anyway, so the hub is a minor issue.{quote}
Already using 500 gig to 1T drives thanks... We deal with a Lot of Data that has to be distributed and don't have the luxury of being in a fixed IT-like position. Ever run several hard drives concurrently on a USB hub ?? USB hubs are notorious for their instability. I have a drawer of trashed ones if you need some spare parts. Do I really need to haul more crap around because Apple needs to save a couple of bucks ??

No thanks. I have a drawer full of badly done FW cases that killed FW on my motherboard requiring replacement of said MB by apple, on multiple occasions. If you need that level of data transfer, spend the extra $400 bucks and get an MBP. There's a difference between "thrifty" and "cheap".

Quote

{quote}bynkii wrote
To FW 800, yes, but then the Macbooks never had FW800. For that, you went pro, and luckily, FW800 is still on the pro. So if you rely on FW800, nothing changed for you.{quote}
Check, but why take away something that was (and is... ) a superior format. We were still able to use the FW400 connectors on FW800 drives even at a reduced speed ... why not add FW800 to these machines when the format is in such daily wide use?? Again , this is not just about hard drives.... We have a lot of money tied up in state of the art firewire only audio interfaces. I don't want to see this format go the way of the Dodo for no good reason.

Why make people who don't care about FW800 on a consumer laptop pay for it, when the people who DO care, can get a Pro laptop and have it.

Quote

{quote}bynkii wrote
A plastic Macbook and a third party drive is still cheaper, and slightly faster than the low end Al Macbook.{quote}

Right, and that's what I've recommended to the several people who have phoned me this morning to get my opinions on what MacBook to buy. We could definitely use the faster graphics, but why pay almost a thousand bucks more to get to the next level of machines with a firewire port ??

$400 bucks more. If you need FW800, you were never using a Macbook ANYWAY, so this hurts you not at all.

[gag42]

DreamweaverMM, I agree with you a hundred percent. Various people here are giving their opinions based on their own experience, without thinking the issue through. This is of course human nature.

For me a glossy screen is useless. I'm a pro photographer who needs a matte screen on the road. Yes one can color-correct a glossy screen, but one can't alter the contrast level and high-gloss reflections to make it any use as a working instrument for serious use in preparing for the printed page. Peter Cohen and others I'm sure will find it fine for gaming, but many of us use their computers for serious work. High-gloss just doesn't work, sorry. By the way, I still use a fine-quality CRT for serious Photoshop work in the studio. You may think it's glossy, but no, it's more like semi-matte. In our slightly dimmed, color-temperature-controlled working environment reflections are invisible. We would find it impossible to work with high-gloss iMacs.

My present MacBook Pro is the previous 15in matte-screen model, and it works just great. As I customarily lug a lot of heavy photo gear around I would have preferred to have bought a smaller laptop for traveling, but the MacBook available at the time only came with a high-gloss screen, so I bought the MBP. A few extra hundred bucks was not the issue: functionality is the issue. The current lineup of MacBooks and MacBook Pros would not provide a working solution for people like me. We have a lot invested in software so there's no incentive to change platforms for the foreseeable future, but when the present computers wear out in a couple of years or so, we'll have to look hard at available options if Apple still doesn't offer usable computers at that point.

[bynkii]

gag42 said:

DreamweaverMM, I agree with you a hundred percent. Various people here are giving their opinions based on their own experience, without thinking the issue through. This is of course human nature.

For me a glossy screen is useless. I'm a pro photographer who needs a matte screen on the road. Yes one can color-correct a glossy screen, but one can't alter the contrast level and high-gloss reflections to make it any use as a working instrument for serious use in preparing for the printed page. Peter Cohen and others I'm sure will find it fine for gaming, but many of us use their computers for serious work. High-gloss just doesn't work, sorry. By the way, I still use a fine-quality CRT for serious Photoshop work in the studio. You may think it's glossy, but no, it's more like semi-matte. In our slightly dimmed, color-temperature-controlled working environment reflections are invisible. We would find it impossible to work with high-gloss iMacs.

I'm a pro. I run hundreds of computers off of my MBP, and support every application you can think of other than maybe Maya-type stuff. Gloss is no problem.

My wife is a graphics pro in an office where two walls are windows. A bit of thought about orientation, and she works fine with a high-gloss screen. In fact, her one matte screen, a Cintiq, is the color problem in her work, because they suck to calibrate. Hmm...matte is not magic. Funny that.

Peter is professional writer, instructor, and gamer.

Oddly, "Pro" applies across a wide range of uses.

"Impossible" and "Inconvenient" are not the same. that's why they use different words.

Quote

My present MacBook Pro is the previous 15in matte-screen model, and it works just great. As I customarily lug a lot of heavy photo gear around I would have preferred to have bought a smaller laptop for traveling, but the MacBook available at the time only came with a high-gloss screen, so I bought the MBP. A few extra hundred bucks was not the issue: functionality is the issue. The current lineup of MacBooks and MacBook Pros would not provide a working solution for people like me. We have a lot invested in software so there's no incentive to change platforms for the foreseeable future, but when the present computers wear out in a couple of years or so, we'll have to look hard at available options if Apple still doesn't offer usable computers at that point.

If it works just great, then why do you care about new computers? Your current one "works just great". So wait. Chances are, if enough people RATIONALLY complain about the Matte screen issue, Apple will bring it back. If not, there are solutions to the gloss issue. You may not like them, but that does not mean they don't exist.

[chuckstjohn]

Yes, I did look up adapter cables and did not find any. If you can direct me, I'd be grateful. There are, however, many adapters that allow you to use existing FW 400 cables to the FW800 port which I've used before just not with this particular camera.

[zozocalypso]

Your missing the point bynkil. The new Macbook has slower connectivity than it's predecessor. It's not about making compromises.

[Kachakaach]

ok, here you go - Links to cables (not "adapter" cables, just plain ol' cables with different ends on them) I suspect the use of the word "adapter" is screwing up your search results chuckstjohn.

http://www.cablestog...sp?cat%5Fid=610

http://www.cablestog...sp?cat%5Fid=611

[chuckstjohn]

This is the solution I needed. Much obliged. I will still try to see if the adapter works...not use tossing it and all the 8m cables I have :-)

[Steve_S]

DreamweaverMM said:

1. It must be a matte screen, glossy screens hove major problems from a color correction issue to being able to see what the student is doing when reviewing their work.

Look, people have different opinions about matte vs glossy screens. Your comments about color correction issues relating to glossy screens is just nonsense.

Quote

2. Must have firewire 400 or 800 ports. We use Canon professional HD camcorders and Final Cut Pro as well as blu-ray burners which require firewire

Yes, agreed, this is a real issue. I don't agree with Apple in that Firewire should be considered a pro only feature. But, rest assured, the lack of Firewire will likely not impact Macbook sales.

Quote

If Apple doesn't fix this in the next 6 months, it will cost our school over $100,000 to switch to a windows solution.

Switching platforms and spending much more money is illogical. It makes your argument more emotional than rational. Firewire is still available in Mac laptops, just somewhat more expensive (and more capable) models. Changing from Final Cut Pro to whatever else you'd use on the PC would be much more of a significant change than even the platform you work on.

[People_Eater]

bynkii said:

You're using MOTU to do professional recording, and you run your business on the cheapest possible laptop? Apple is SO not the problem here.

Jeez, bynkii, will you stop spamming the forum with your drivel?

A low-end Macbook is more than powerful enough to do professional audio work on. Many musicians don't want a 15" Macbook Pro, because of the large size. They want something more portable, and Apple no longer makes a 12" MBP.

Also, the Macbooks have been more durable than the old (non unibody) MBP, which doesn't hold up so well in a live performance situation.

Reading this article and thread, I think there's too much emphasis being placed on the idea of "consumer" vs. "pro" machines. Back in the day, we used to do professional work on machines with 32MB of RAM and 100MHz processor. Any modern machine blows away the power of the old "pro" machines. The reality is, that there are many pros using "consumer" gear, and many consumers using the "pro" gear for non-demanding tasks.

Put bluntly, the price of your equipment doesn't determine the quality of your work.

[gag42]

Sorry, I actually posted my last message to the wrong thread.

Still, what you say reflects my comment. People consider their own issues. I'm only considering mine. Your wife works in graphics? Probably not my level of color accuracy if she can work with high-gloss. I've tried it, sorry. Otherwise I don't think we disagree.

[Steve_S]

Peter Cohen said:

And I have no argument that FireWire remains a popular interface on professional products. But again, as I've stated and restated elsewhere, there's this other product in Apple's lineup called the MacBook Pro that's infinitely better suited for use by video professionals, audio professionals, and others who are doing tasks that require the bandwidth and speed of FireWire-based products.

Peter, I agree with that and I'm also the kind of customer that does buy the Macbook Pro. For me, it's an easy choice. But, let's be honest, there are many others that are on a more difficult budget. When you can get a $500 (ballpark) based PC with Firewire laptop and Apple doesn't include such an important feature in a $1200+ laptop, there is a problem. If the Macbook had an Express 34 slot, it wouldn't be an issue because Firewire would still be an option for those who really need it. That's not the case though.

Quote

I'm having trouble understanding why Apple's decision to excise FireWire from the MacBook specifically is somehow seen by everyone as a referendum on Apple's support of FireWire all together, or the future of FireWire as a professional interface standard.

Apple made a decision years back to make Firewire ubiquitous on the Mac platform. They are now taking it away from the low end. Still selling the old Macbook doesn't count. It's only a matter of time before that is discontinued all together.

Quote

This isn't the first evidence we've seen of Apple marketing leading its engineering and I suspect that it's far from the last.

That doesn't make it right, nor does it validate Apple's decision. Losing compatibility with Firewire devices is one thing (a big thing), but not the only issue. The timing isn't right for this decision. If Apple made this decision to drop Firewire alongside the decision to adopt something like USB 3, the pill would be a bit easier to swallow. Even though USB 3 would lack some of Firewire's features and lack compatibility with existing devices, one could at least argue that the increased bandwidth of the "new standard" would make it all worth while. That's not how Apple handled it. Finally, I suppose much of the frustration comes from the fact that the Macbook would be a truly awesome update were it not from Apple's boneheaded decision to drop Firewire. Personally, I won't be affected by this, but I still have to acknowledge many others will, including schools with budgets, etc.

[People_Eater]

bynkii said:

Funny, I don't see people screaming nearly as much about the lack of DVI ports on the MacBook. That was a "standard" peripheral connection. Gone. Computer "standards" change regularly. Change is the only constant of computers.

That's because it was replaced with DisplayPort, a superior technology which is perfectly compatible with DVI, HDMI and VGA. It's better than having any one of those interfaces. Apple has not replaced Firewire with something better. They only leave us with inferior solutions.