I would love faster ports. When I backup my home folder to a USB hd it takes a good 4 hours. Syncing my iPad also takes ages if there are movies.
USB hard drives have much lower transfer rates than FireWire 800 drives due to the need for the CPU to handle every little block of information transferred. FireWire doesn't have this problem so it doesn't disturb your work as it backs up. PowerPC based USB is especially bad as it's USB 2.0 drivers were really slow.
OWC (Other World Computing) has great deals of Firewire HDD. Excellent product selection and great customer service if you run into a problem. Check out there Mercury Elite Pro series. It's all that you need if you are looking into a firewire desktop set up.
I second that opinion except if you need more than 1 TB in one spot. Their Guardian MAXimus offers 2 TB mirrored pair that is safe and does not slow down if you leave it as a 2 TB volume. Their regular Mercury Elite-AL Pro do. It's a bug if FireWire 800. Somehow the MAXimus controller avoids it.
I'm not sure why the stupidity with respect to USB 3 is constantly repeated in these forums, but it is Intel that is the problem here. USB 3 isn't in any of its current shipping chipsets. You can't have what isn't there.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
Means Apple will not see a dime from me. I will hold out until I need another computer and if they don't have it, It will be windows 7 for me. It's a shame after so many years too, but Apple clearly isn't interested in releasing a real computer that can handle all the multimedia that it used to. Too much focus in it's iPod/iPhone. Apple should have released at least a BluRay Option in their MacPro's and FinalCut should already have full BluRay Capability. Not an afterthought in Compressor. Apple is about to loose it's professional video industry members if it keeps this crap up. There is NO Excuse.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
Apple probably would not use the discrete chip and even if they did, a driver would need to be written in to make it work in the Mac OS X environment as well as the Boot Camp environment and maybe a redesign of the iPad, iPhone, and iPod lines to take advantage of that. It would not be trivial for Apple to do it the integrated Apple way. They are not going to do it just to support one or two curiosity hard drives made by no name brands. If Apple is going USB 3, it will be innovative in it's application.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
It is true that such chips exist but it would be foolish for Apple to implement them. Some reasons below:
1. Such chips need drivers
2. The drivers would only be needed to support at best one or two generations of Mac. However once in the hardware space the drivers need to be supported forever.
3. Many of the USB 3 chips have had issue related to being early devices. At least one with excessive power usage for Apple products ( just recently fixed ).
4. Besides the whining on this site USB 3 hasn't really hasn't taken off yet. That in part due to Intel not supporting USB 3 in its chipsets.
In the end Apple will support USB 3 that should be a no brainer for them. But they will do so when it is easy to implement and doesn't impact their machines negatively. It isn't far off as we are seeing far more suitable standalone chips coming into play, AMD is being very aggressive with USB 3 and Intel will eventually get there. Otherwise the time/hardware hasn't been right for Apple.
There's no idea of what the specs will be, how it will perform, nor what it will cost - just a rumor that there will be an update soon (big surprise there). Yet the trolls are already running around claiming that it's overpriced and underpowered. Amazing.
The dude (or dudette) isn't a troll. This is my fear also and given Apple's recent behavior it's a fear that seems all too justified. Apple has made no secret of the fact it sees itself as a "mobile devices company". If they were interested in keeping the Mac Pros competitive they wouldn't have let them get to 500 days old, which is half way to obsolete!
After such a long wait I'd expect nothing less than 8-core performance out of the new low-end 6-core processor. If they reduce the form factor and cut the price over an the existing quad-core then we have the beginnings of a competitive entry level machine.
I see USB 3 coming on future Macs, but not a faster FireWire. I think FireWire will be left alone, then ultimately phased out for LightPeak. Although if LightPeak turns out to be a dud like MiniDisplay port, everyone will be using USB 3.0 anyway.
2. The drivers would only be needed to support at best one or two generations of Mac. However once in the hardware space the drivers need to be supported forever.
3. Many of the USB 3 chips have had issue related to being early devices. At least one with excessive power usage for Apple products ( just recently fixed ).
4. Besides the whining on this site USB 3 hasn't really hasn't taken off yet. That in part due to Intel not supporting USB 3 in its chipsets.
Apple may or may not add USB 3 to future Macs, but none of those reasons would stop Apple for one second if the decision has been made to do it.
abercrombie clothing Garment companies have abercrombie and fitch, without exception, abercrombie store the market abercrombie usa segmentation using scientific standards, and accurately grasp the consumer group's individual needs, enterprises are there any advantages to speak of it to know, fashionable clothing will never be faced with saturated markets, not to mention small market, sub-section of only a marketing tool. Clothing enterprises in order to effectively meet the growing consumer group needs renovation, it is necessary for such needs in-depth investigation and a thorough understanding of this garment abercrombie sale is a permanent issue abercrombie & fitch outlet.
Apple may or may not add USB 3 to future Macs, but none of those reasons would stop Apple for one second if the decision has been made to do it.
If they made the decision that would be the case. But Apple doesn't normally support interim hardware if it can avoid doing so.
Further on the laptops, Mini and iMac the wasted power seen on the early USB3 chips would have prevented Apple from implementing them. This can't be discounted when Apple is so focused on power usage.
Just understand that USB3 will come. That I'm pretty much convinced of. Apple will wait for viable hardware to cover most Macs.
USB hard drives have much lower transfer rates than FireWire 800 drives due to the need for the CPU to handle every little block of information transferred. FireWire doesn't have this problem so it doesn't disturb your work as it backs up. PowerPC based USB is especially bad as it's USB 2.0 drivers were really slow.
The cpu 'overhead' involved with USB is pretty easily absorbed with dual core cpus. In the era of quad core and better cpus that 'overhead' is trivial. Not to say that USB is better than FW but that issue was more significant with single core cpus.
I'm not sure why the stupidity with respect to USB 3 is constantly repeated in these forums, but it is Intel that is the problem here. USB 3 isn't in any of its current shipping chipsets. You can't have what isn't there.
As to Blu-Ray please get a life. It is a corrupt technology.
Good for you! Enjoy your Windows 7 and everything that comes with it.
Dave
Oh what nonsense. Blu-ray is great, you should try watching one. Tell me where else I can get that level of quality. All I want BD for in a PC is to ripp my BDs to watch on the go. Surely that's not too much to ask, especially as a BTO option.
And thanks, I'll keep enjoying Windows 7! It's a great OS! Really, it's top banana! You should try it!
The cpu 'overhead' involved with USB is pretty easily absorbed with dual core cpus. In the era of quad core and better cpus that 'overhead' is trivial. Not to say that USB is better than FW but that issue was more significant with single core cpus.
While it's true that the impact in minimized with multi-core Macs, nobody with a serious storage system is considering USB. FireWire is considered marginal, for backup only. It's typically hardware RAID via a PCIe card to a disk array. Can't be done with a lightweight connection like USB. Best that could do would be a port multiplier enclosure that offers somewhat less than half the performance at best, and less via USB. I know USB drives are cheap. You get what you pay for. I only use USB as a last resort for my home needs when I connect a bare hard drive.
FireWire 1600 or 3200 would make FireWire a contender again. I use a pair of 1200 Mbps rated mini-SAS cables to connect my Mac Pro's RAID card to my boot hard drive(s). Each is like 4 eSATA channels. I'm not really bragging here, but for high performance, this is how it's done. USB 3.0 acceptance for anything more than a single drive or a iPhone, a high performance scanner, maybe a high performance digital camcorder or a external display adapter. Most things can't push data fast enough to warrant an upgrade to USB 3.0.
While it's true that the impact in minimized with multi-core Macs, nobody with a serious storage system is considering USB. FireWire is considered marginal, for backup only. It's typically hardware RAID via a PCIe card to a disk array. Can't be done with a lightweight connection like USB. Best that could do would be a port multiplier enclosure that offers somewhat less than half the performance at best, and less via USB. I know USB drives are cheap. You get what you pay for. I only use USB as a last resort for my home needs when I connect a bare hard drive.
FireWire 1600 or 3200 would make FireWire a contender again. I use a pair of 1200 Mbps rated mini-SAS cables to connect my Mac Pro's RAID card to my boot hard drive(s). Each is like 4 eSATA channels. I'm not really bragging here, but for high performance, this is how it's done. USB 3.0 acceptance for anything more than a single drive or a iPhone, a high performance scanner, maybe a high performance digital camcorder or a external display adapter. Most things can't push data fast enough to warrant an upgrade to USB 3.0.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. USB isn't for serious storage.
But for a time machine back-up they are fine. And with modern dual core or better cpus you needn't worry about system performance while TM is doing it's thing if you're working on something else.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. USB isn't for serious storage.
But for a time machine back-up they are fine. And with modern dual core or better cpus you needn't worry about system performance while TM is doing it's thing if you're working on something else.
OK so you look forward to USB 3.0 for time machine backup. If greater speed USB 3.0 drives will cos more, might they cost as much as a FireWire 800 drive? If so, no advantage unless USB 3.0 becomes popular, they make lots of Windows machines with USB 3.0 standard so they make lots of USB 3.0 drives and then they will cost less than a FireWire drive. With the bug in FireWire with larger than 1 TB volumes, then this will be welcome work-around.
One, premium pricing is fine, if it accompanies premium, bleeding edge hardware. Whether Apple offers that with their Mac Pro, I will leave to each reader's opinion. Those who have read my posts already know my stance. After 12 years or so I'm leaving the Mac for my line of work (3D graphics).
Two, gigantic #$%ing clue for Apple, the advantages of using a Xeon only exist for multi-CPU macs. You can use more than one Xeon per motherboard. There is no point, whatsoever, in using a single-CPU Xeon setup. A Core i7 will smoke the Mac Pro single CPU in every task, and cost, literally, a fraction of the Mac Pro costs. When you can do work many many times faster, for half the cost, on another platform, with less buggy tools, it's time to make the switch.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, not a personal computer. It uses ECC memory, like the xServe. The lower end Core i7 series does not. Unless you can convince Steve Jobs to drop the expensive Xeon and ECC memory for future Mac Pro, we have to wait for Intel to ship acceptable quantities of the next gen. hexa-core X56xx series processors. (Westmere-EP, the next-gen Nehalem micro-architecture models) They were released mid March 2010 but they have had problems in making in quantity, thus no new Mac Pro. It's not Apple's fault. Yes you could buy one or two yourself, but Apple needs thousands.
OK so you look forward to USB 3.0 for time machine backup. If greater speed USB 3.0 drives will cos more, might they cost as much as a FireWire 800 drive? If so, no advantage unless USB 3.0 becomes popular, they make lots of Windows machines with USB 3.0 standard so they make lots of USB 3.0 drives and then they will cost less than a FireWire drive. With the bug in FireWire with larger than 1 TB volumes, then this will be welcome work-around.
USB isn't *just* for HDDs. USB is a common interface for a lot of peripherals.
A USB 3 card reader will be the first USB 3 device I get personally.
Comments
I would love faster ports. When I backup my home folder to a USB hd it takes a good 4 hours. Syncing my iPad also takes ages if there are movies.
USB hard drives have much lower transfer rates than FireWire 800 drives due to the need for the CPU to handle every little block of information transferred. FireWire doesn't have this problem so it doesn't disturb your work as it backs up. PowerPC based USB is especially bad as it's USB 2.0 drivers were really slow.
OWC (Other World Computing) has great deals of Firewire HDD. Excellent product selection and great customer service if you run into a problem. Check out there Mercury Elite Pro series. It's all that you need if you are looking into a firewire desktop set up.
I second that opinion except if you need more than 1 TB in one spot. Their Guardian MAXimus offers 2 TB mirrored pair that is safe and does not slow down if you leave it as a 2 TB volume. Their regular Mercury Elite-AL Pro do. It's a bug if FireWire 800. Somehow the MAXimus controller avoids it.
I'm not sure why the stupidity with respect to USB 3 is constantly repeated in these forums, but it is Intel that is the problem here. USB 3 isn't in any of its current shipping chipsets. You can't have what isn't there.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
Apple probably would not use the discrete chip and even if they did, a driver would need to be written in to make it work in the Mac OS X environment as well as the Boot Camp environment and maybe a redesign of the iPad, iPhone, and iPod lines to take advantage of that. It would not be trivial for Apple to do it the integrated Apple way. They are not going to do it just to support one or two curiosity hard drives made by no name brands. If Apple is going USB 3, it will be innovative in it's application.
Many computers are now shipping with USB 3.0. It doesn't matter what Intel does and does not provide; a simple, small chip adds USB 3.0 support.
It is true that such chips exist but it would be foolish for Apple to implement them. Some reasons below:
1. Such chips need drivers
2. The drivers would only be needed to support at best one or two generations of Mac. However once in the hardware space the drivers need to be supported forever.
3. Many of the USB 3 chips have had issue related to being early devices. At least one with excessive power usage for Apple products ( just recently fixed ).
4. Besides the whining on this site USB 3 hasn't really hasn't taken off yet. That in part due to Intel not supporting USB 3 in its chipsets.
In the end Apple will support USB 3 that should be a no brainer for them. But they will do so when it is easy to implement and doesn't impact their machines negatively. It isn't far off as we are seeing far more suitable standalone chips coming into play, AMD is being very aggressive with USB 3 and Intel will eventually get there. Otherwise the time/hardware hasn't been right for Apple.
You have to love the trolls.
There's no idea of what the specs will be, how it will perform, nor what it will cost - just a rumor that there will be an update soon (big surprise there). Yet the trolls are already running around claiming that it's overpriced and underpowered. Amazing.
The dude (or dudette) isn't a troll. This is my fear also and given Apple's recent behavior it's a fear that seems all too justified. Apple has made no secret of the fact it sees itself as a "mobile devices company". If they were interested in keeping the Mac Pros competitive they wouldn't have let them get to 500 days old, which is half way to obsolete!
After such a long wait I'd expect nothing less than 8-core performance out of the new low-end 6-core processor. If they reduce the form factor and cut the price over an the existing quad-core then we have the beginnings of a competitive entry level machine.
1. Such chips need drivers
2. The drivers would only be needed to support at best one or two generations of Mac. However once in the hardware space the drivers need to be supported forever.
3. Many of the USB 3 chips have had issue related to being early devices. At least one with excessive power usage for Apple products ( just recently fixed ).
4. Besides the whining on this site USB 3 hasn't really hasn't taken off yet. That in part due to Intel not supporting USB 3 in its chipsets.
Apple may or may not add USB 3 to future Macs, but none of those reasons would stop Apple for one second if the decision has been made to do it.
Apple may or may not add USB 3 to future Macs, but none of those reasons would stop Apple for one second if the decision has been made to do it.
If they made the decision that would be the case. But Apple doesn't normally support interim hardware if it can avoid doing so.
Further on the laptops, Mini and iMac the wasted power seen on the early USB3 chips would have prevented Apple from implementing them. This can't be discounted when Apple is so focused on power usage.
Just understand that USB3 will come. That I'm pretty much convinced of. Apple will wait for viable hardware to cover most Macs.
Dave
USB hard drives have much lower transfer rates than FireWire 800 drives due to the need for the CPU to handle every little block of information transferred. FireWire doesn't have this problem so it doesn't disturb your work as it backs up. PowerPC based USB is especially bad as it's USB 2.0 drivers were really slow.
The cpu 'overhead' involved with USB is pretty easily absorbed with dual core cpus. In the era of quad core and better cpus that 'overhead' is trivial. Not to say that USB is better than FW but that issue was more significant with single core cpus.
I'm not sure why the stupidity with respect to USB 3 is constantly repeated in these forums, but it is Intel that is the problem here. USB 3 isn't in any of its current shipping chipsets. You can't have what isn't there.
As to Blu-Ray please get a life. It is a corrupt technology.
Good for you! Enjoy your Windows 7 and everything that comes with it.
Dave
Oh what nonsense. Blu-ray is great, you should try watching one. Tell me where else I can get that level of quality. All I want BD for in a PC is to ripp my BDs to watch on the go. Surely that's not too much to ask, especially as a BTO option.
And thanks, I'll keep enjoying Windows 7! It's a great OS! Really, it's top banana! You should try it!
The cpu 'overhead' involved with USB is pretty easily absorbed with dual core cpus. In the era of quad core and better cpus that 'overhead' is trivial. Not to say that USB is better than FW but that issue was more significant with single core cpus.
While it's true that the impact in minimized with multi-core Macs, nobody with a serious storage system is considering USB. FireWire is considered marginal, for backup only. It's typically hardware RAID via a PCIe card to a disk array. Can't be done with a lightweight connection like USB. Best that could do would be a port multiplier enclosure that offers somewhat less than half the performance at best, and less via USB. I know USB drives are cheap. You get what you pay for. I only use USB as a last resort for my home needs when I connect a bare hard drive.
FireWire 1600 or 3200 would make FireWire a contender again. I use a pair of 1200 Mbps rated mini-SAS cables to connect my Mac Pro's RAID card to my boot hard drive(s). Each is like 4 eSATA channels. I'm not really bragging here, but for high performance, this is how it's done. USB 3.0 acceptance for anything more than a single drive or a iPhone, a high performance scanner, maybe a high performance digital camcorder or a external display adapter. Most things can't push data fast enough to warrant an upgrade to USB 3.0.
While it's true that the impact in minimized with multi-core Macs, nobody with a serious storage system is considering USB. FireWire is considered marginal, for backup only. It's typically hardware RAID via a PCIe card to a disk array. Can't be done with a lightweight connection like USB. Best that could do would be a port multiplier enclosure that offers somewhat less than half the performance at best, and less via USB. I know USB drives are cheap. You get what you pay for. I only use USB as a last resort for my home needs when I connect a bare hard drive.
FireWire 1600 or 3200 would make FireWire a contender again. I use a pair of 1200 Mbps rated mini-SAS cables to connect my Mac Pro's RAID card to my boot hard drive(s). Each is like 4 eSATA channels. I'm not really bragging here, but for high performance, this is how it's done. USB 3.0 acceptance for anything more than a single drive or a iPhone, a high performance scanner, maybe a high performance digital camcorder or a external display adapter. Most things can't push data fast enough to warrant an upgrade to USB 3.0.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. USB isn't for serious storage.
But for a time machine back-up they are fine. And with modern dual core or better cpus you needn't worry about system performance while TM is doing it's thing if you're working on something else.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. USB isn't for serious storage.
But for a time machine back-up they are fine. And with modern dual core or better cpus you needn't worry about system performance while TM is doing it's thing if you're working on something else.
OK so you look forward to USB 3.0 for time machine backup. If greater speed USB 3.0 drives will cos more, might they cost as much as a FireWire 800 drive? If so, no advantage unless USB 3.0 becomes popular, they make lots of Windows machines with USB 3.0 standard so they make lots of USB 3.0 drives and then they will cost less than a FireWire drive. With the bug in FireWire with larger than 1 TB volumes, then this will be welcome work-around.
One, premium pricing is fine, if it accompanies premium, bleeding edge hardware. Whether Apple offers that with their Mac Pro, I will leave to each reader's opinion. Those who have read my posts already know my stance. After 12 years or so I'm leaving the Mac for my line of work (3D graphics).
Two, gigantic #$%ing clue for Apple, the advantages of using a Xeon only exist for multi-CPU macs. You can use more than one Xeon per motherboard. There is no point, whatsoever, in using a single-CPU Xeon setup. A Core i7 will smoke the Mac Pro single CPU in every task, and cost, literally, a fraction of the Mac Pro costs. When you can do work many many times faster, for half the cost, on another platform, with less buggy tools, it's time to make the switch.
Let's all think about those two points.
OK so you look forward to USB 3.0 for time machine backup. If greater speed USB 3.0 drives will cos more, might they cost as much as a FireWire 800 drive? If so, no advantage unless USB 3.0 becomes popular, they make lots of Windows machines with USB 3.0 standard so they make lots of USB 3.0 drives and then they will cost less than a FireWire drive. With the bug in FireWire with larger than 1 TB volumes, then this will be welcome work-around.
USB isn't *just* for HDDs. USB is a common interface for a lot of peripherals.
A USB 3 card reader will be the first USB 3 device I get personally.
YMMV