One or two of the causes for dropping Firewire from the MB aren't really there for the mini. There wasn't much board perimeter on the MB, and the main board is very tight, possibly squeezed out the FW arbitrator chip, the mini in its current form has plenty of room for jacks on the back.
The new 24" LED Cinema Display lacks the FW400 ports of past iterations. How do you explain away that? What new size restrictions were introduced there? And don't most pros use Apple's Cinema Displays? The new MacBook Pro lost FW400 too and there's more space to work with than the MacBook and it's targeted at affluent pros, just like the Cinema Displays, who tend to prefer Firewire over USB 2.0. Perhaps Apple came to the realization that serious pros prefer FW800 while just about everyone else doesn't know or care about FW400 and thus, use USB 2.0.
I think that is the direction of the future; a home server to handle all of the media, portable user accounts, home automation, etc.
'Big iron' for the homefront data store & portables (laptops, netbooks, tablets, iPhones) for the end user. Need a larger screen at home? Get a 24" LED Cinema Display 'docking station'?
Apple also included a non-standard USB port on the Air, does that mean they'll include this same non-standard port on all future Macs? The port puts out more power than the USB spec says in order to power the external optical drive. I wouldn't point to the Air as an example of standards-to-come due to the unique compromises it makes.
INSIGHTS
USB 2.0 IS TRULY FASTER -- BUT STILL NOT QUITE AS FAST AS FIREWIRE 400
Up until now, every time we tested a USB 2.0 storage device on a Mac, the transfer rate was about half that of FireWire 400 even though it had a higher theoretical speed rating (480Mbit/s). Though it's still not quite as fast as FireWire 400, it's close enough to explain why Apple did away with the FW400 port on all new MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
iPods lost Firewire long before the iPhone came along.
I wasn't listing them in any particular order, just stating that all current iPods lack charge/sync over Firewire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
The mini may lose FW, but I don't think it's as forgone a conclusion as some would make it out to be. Apple would need to include some great new feature or benefit to make up for the loss of Firewire before I'd buy one.
The important thing to remember is that it's not simply Firewire that the Mac mini is (likely) going to lose, but the FW400 variety. It has never had FW800, just as Apple's Cinema Displays have never had FW800, just as the MacBook has never had FW400, so it's not really getting rid of Firewire in all its forms, just the largely unused FW400 (thanks to consumers who don't know better and use USB 2.0 and serious pros, who use the far faster FW800 spec on Apple's Pro machines). But who knows, maybe Apple will implement FW800 ports in future revisions of all their Macs to edge out USB 3 whenever it comes around.
Same thoughts here... Mighty Mouse would be an easy product to improve upon, and they should think about offering two quality levels of mice. Mighty Mouse and MousePro.
A mouse with pressure sensitive buttons would be really nice to use in Phototshop or Illustrator.
This isn't aimed directly at Wobegon, because I see it happening a lot on these forums:
Nothing like branding a group of people, whose opinions don't align with yours, a 'vocal minority'. How condescending?
A few years ago, the entire Mac user base could have been described as a 'vocal minority'.
Ah, but I made a concerted effort to not sound condescending, which was lost by you taking my words out of context. Here's what I said in its entirety:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
The fact a vocal minority complained about the loss of FW400 wouldn't be enough to affect Apple's decisions when the mainstream majority doesn't even recognize the few benefits FW400 had left over Apple's use of faster USB 2.0 buses on their new Mac laptops.
See, I didn't even identify myself as part of the mainstream majority, just that the mainstream majority is who Apple caters to. I also noted that FW400 did in fact have advantages over USB 2.0 (though I didn't list them as everyone knows what they are, particularly Target Disk Mode and daisy-chaining multiple FW devices).
A mouse with pressure sensitive buttons would be really nice to use in Phototshop or Illustrator.
Isn't a Wacom better for that anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
The new 24" LED Cinema Display lacks the FW400 ports of past iterations. How do you explain away that? What new size restrictions were introduced there? And don't most pros use Apple's Cinema Displays? The new MacBook Pro lost FW400 too and there's more space to work with than the MacBook and it's targeted at affluent pros, just like the Cinema Displays, who tend to prefer Firewire over USB 2.0. Perhaps Apple came to the realization that serious pros prefer FW800 while just about everyone else doesn't know or care about FW400 and thus, use USB 2.0.
They also said that it was designed for the notebooks, two out of their three notebook models don't have Firewire.
They also said that it was designed for the notebooks, two out of their three notebook models don't have Firewire.
The new 24" LED Cinema Display? Yeah, so what? They also said all Macs going forward will have Mini DisplayPort, so that means four - Mac mini, new MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro - out of the six types of Macs, a majority, have FW400 compatibility.
Of course they're going to promote/equip the Cinema Display for notebooks - notebooks are the desktop computers of tomorrow and they don't want to overtly promote them for use with the desktop computers everyone already has nor for use with the Mac mini, which is their least profitable Mac; trying to promote it for use with their extremely profitable Mac Pro wouldn't work on most consumers who would see a computer entirely overpowered and overpriced for their needs.
*EDIT*
So your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right.
And lastly, to the comment about making the Mac mini ever so slightly larger so it could hold a 3.5" full-size HD - Yes! What would it take? perhaps .75 to 1" wider and longer? Go from 6.5" per side to 6.9 or 7" square. And for that meager increase in desktop space, it would vastly improve HD performance and capacity, plus cut Apple supply cost. (but, IMO, it won't happen -- they already have the form factor size 'fixed' in their heads, and in all the after-market add-ons ...)
and....
Quote:
Originally Posted by system6
Also, I doubt there will ever be a desktop HDD in the mini. Although performance would increase, so would heat, noise, and power requirements. In fact there's a good chance that the whole mini case would vibrate.
The form factor already exists at 7.7" X 7.7" for AppleTV and TimeCapsule so they don't have to break any new ground to give the mini a slightly larger footprint. Also, both of those devices have 3.5" HDDs so the question of heat and vibration caused by using a bigger drive *should* be moot.
The form factor already exists at 7.7" X 7.7" for AppleTV and TimeCapsule so they don't have to break any new ground to give the mini a slightly larger footprint. Also, both of those devices have 3.5" HDDs so the question of heat and vibration caused by using a bigger drive *should* be moot.
The new 24" LED Cinema Display? Yeah, so what? They also said all Macs going forward will have Mini DisplayPort, so that means four - Mac mini, new MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro - out of the six types of Macs, a majority, have FW400 compatibility.
You mean use it with a desktop with a dangling magsafe connector? You're saying so what when Apple puts in very large text "made precisely for a MacBook" on their site?
You mean use it with a desktop with a dangling magsafe connector? You're saying so what when Apple puts in very large text "made precisely for a MacBook" on their site?
Hah, I just edited my original post like half a second ago. I'll repost my point (which I had left out) here :
Your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right [considering the new Cinema Displays nor the new MacBook Pros have any real space restrictions, yet they both dropped FW400].
Hah, I just edited my original post like half a second ago. I'll repost my point (which I had left out) here :
Your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right.
As far as I remember, the new LED cinema display is the only one that doesn't really fit the space constraint argument. Dropping FW on iPods supposedly allowed dropping a chip from the board. That might be reasonably said of the Air and regular MB, the circuit boards are pretty small. Maybe it's arguable that the port could have remained without making the products larger.
As far as I remember, the new LED cinema display is the only one that doesn't really fit the space constraint argument.
You forgot the new MacBook Pro, which also lacked a real space restriction yet dropped its FW400. I edited my post for clarity (but obviously was a bit slow on the draw again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Dropping FW on iPods supposedly allowed dropping a chip from the board. That might be reasonably said of the Air and regular MB, the circuit boards are pretty small. Maybe it's arguable that the port could have remained without making the products larger.
I'm even trying to argue that FW400 could have fit because that's not why it is (likely) being retired on all new Macs. FW400 advantages over USB 2.0 have gone unnoticed (and unused, for that matter) by the vast majority of people who buy new Macs and the only really important advantage that consumers would actually care about - speed - has now pretty much disappeared thanks to Apple's use of faster USB 2.0 buses that come close enough to matching FW400 that most consumers who might even give FW400 a try wouldn't see the difference. Target Disk Mode and daisy-chaining aren't even on their collective radar.
FW800, on the other hand, has a very obvious speed advantage, thus it lives on.
Also of interest is that the entries for the new iMac and Mac mini are dated 2008, which may provide evidence to support claims that these systems were originally targeted for a release in the November time frame but were pushed into the first quarter of the year due to unexpected delays.
Maybe, if we are heard, Apple will use the new Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop CPU which is 20% to 30% more powerfull than an Intel Penryn quad-core desktop CPU. Let's dream on and hope that Apple listens to its customers.
Intel has officially introduced its next-generation desktop microprocessor, the Core i7, mainly known under its code-name Nehalem, on November 17, 2008. See:
Intel is also planning to launch three 65W low-power desktop CPUs targeting small form factor (SFF) PCs and all-in-one PCs in the middle of January 2009. Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200s (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400s (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550s (2.83GHz/12MB L2) with prices at US$245, US$320 and US$369, respectively in thousand-unit tray quantities. See:
I can't wait to see the upheaval when Apple drops Firewire from the mini and raises prices $200. You know that's what's going to happen if specs match the new MacBook. Don't you?
Comments
One or two of the causes for dropping Firewire from the MB aren't really there for the mini. There wasn't much board perimeter on the MB, and the main board is very tight, possibly squeezed out the FW arbitrator chip, the mini in its current form has plenty of room for jacks on the back.
The new 24" LED Cinema Display lacks the FW400 ports of past iterations. How do you explain away that? What new size restrictions were introduced there? And don't most pros use Apple's Cinema Displays? The new MacBook Pro lost FW400 too and there's more space to work with than the MacBook and it's targeted at affluent pros, just like the Cinema Displays, who tend to prefer Firewire over USB 2.0. Perhaps Apple came to the realization that serious pros prefer FW800 while just about everyone else doesn't know or care about FW400 and thus, use USB 2.0.
?a home server...
Did someone say Home Server??!?
I think that is the direction of the future; a home server to handle all of the media, portable user accounts, home automation, etc.
'Big iron' for the homefront data store & portables (laptops, netbooks, tablets, iPhones) for the end user. Need a larger screen at home? Get a 24" LED Cinema Display 'docking station'?
Sweet?
Apple also included a non-standard USB port on the Air, does that mean they'll include this same non-standard port on all future Macs? The port puts out more power than the USB spec says in order to power the external optical drive. I wouldn't point to the Air as an example of standards-to-come due to the unique compromises it makes.
INSIGHTS
USB 2.0 IS TRULY FASTER -- BUT STILL NOT QUITE AS FAST AS FIREWIRE 400
Up until now, every time we tested a USB 2.0 storage device on a Mac, the transfer rate was about half that of FireWire 400 even though it had a higher theoretical speed rating (480Mbit/s). Though it's still not quite as fast as FireWire 400, it's close enough to explain why Apple did away with the FW400 port on all new MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp10.html
iPods lost Firewire long before the iPhone came along.
I wasn't listing them in any particular order, just stating that all current iPods lack charge/sync over Firewire.
The mini may lose FW, but I don't think it's as forgone a conclusion as some would make it out to be. Apple would need to include some great new feature or benefit to make up for the loss of Firewire before I'd buy one.
The important thing to remember is that it's not simply Firewire that the Mac mini is (likely) going to lose, but the FW400 variety. It has never had FW800, just as Apple's Cinema Displays have never had FW800, just as the MacBook has never had FW400, so it's not really getting rid of Firewire in all its forms, just the largely unused FW400 (thanks to consumers who don't know better and use USB 2.0 and serious pros, who use the far faster FW800 spec on Apple's Pro machines). But who knows, maybe Apple will implement FW800 ports in future revisions of all their Macs to edge out USB 3 whenever it comes around.
Same thoughts here... Mighty Mouse would be an easy product to improve upon, and they should think about offering two quality levels of mice. Mighty Mouse and MousePro.
A mouse with pressure sensitive buttons would be really nice to use in Phototshop or Illustrator.
This isn't aimed directly at Wobegon, because I see it happening a lot on these forums:
Nothing like branding a group of people, whose opinions don't align with yours, a 'vocal minority'. How condescending?
A few years ago, the entire Mac user base could have been described as a 'vocal minority'.
Ah, but I made a concerted effort to not sound condescending, which was lost by you taking my words out of context. Here's what I said in its entirety:
The fact a vocal minority complained about the loss of FW400 wouldn't be enough to affect Apple's decisions when the mainstream majority doesn't even recognize the few benefits FW400 had left over Apple's use of faster USB 2.0 buses on their new Mac laptops.
See, I didn't even identify myself as part of the mainstream majority, just that the mainstream majority is who Apple caters to. I also noted that FW400 did in fact have advantages over USB 2.0 (though I didn't list them as everyone knows what they are, particularly Target Disk Mode and daisy-chaining multiple FW devices).
A mouse with pressure sensitive buttons would be really nice to use in Phototshop or Illustrator.
Isn't a Wacom better for that anyway?
The new 24" LED Cinema Display lacks the FW400 ports of past iterations. How do you explain away that? What new size restrictions were introduced there? And don't most pros use Apple's Cinema Displays? The new MacBook Pro lost FW400 too and there's more space to work with than the MacBook and it's targeted at affluent pros, just like the Cinema Displays, who tend to prefer Firewire over USB 2.0. Perhaps Apple came to the realization that serious pros prefer FW800 while just about everyone else doesn't know or care about FW400 and thus, use USB 2.0.
They also said that it was designed for the notebooks, two out of their three notebook models don't have Firewire.
Isn't a Wacom better for that anyway?
Pressure sensitive buttons could also be used for games. But I forgot, this is a Mac forum.
They also said that it was designed for the notebooks, two out of their three notebook models don't have Firewire.
The new 24" LED Cinema Display? Yeah, so what? They also said all Macs going forward will have Mini DisplayPort, so that means four - Mac mini, new MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro - out of the six types of Macs, a majority, have FW400 compatibility.
Of course they're going to promote/equip the Cinema Display for notebooks - notebooks are the desktop computers of tomorrow and they don't want to overtly promote them for use with the desktop computers everyone already has nor for use with the Mac mini, which is their least profitable Mac; trying to promote it for use with their extremely profitable Mac Pro wouldn't work on most consumers who would see a computer entirely overpowered and overpriced for their needs.
*EDIT*
So your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right.
Pressure sensitive buttons could also be used for games. But I forgot, this is a Mac forum.
Pet your virtual dog! Pet, pet, (sneeze) squish. oops.
And lastly, to the comment about making the Mac mini ever so slightly larger so it could hold a 3.5" full-size HD - Yes! What would it take? perhaps .75 to 1" wider and longer? Go from 6.5" per side to 6.9 or 7" square. And for that meager increase in desktop space, it would vastly improve HD performance and capacity, plus cut Apple supply cost. (but, IMO, it won't happen -- they already have the form factor size 'fixed' in their heads, and in all the after-market add-ons ...)
and....
Also, I doubt there will ever be a desktop HDD in the mini. Although performance would increase, so would heat, noise, and power requirements. In fact there's a good chance that the whole mini case would vibrate.
The form factor already exists at 7.7" X 7.7" for AppleTV and TimeCapsule so they don't have to break any new ground to give the mini a slightly larger footprint. Also, both of those devices have 3.5" HDDs so the question of heat and vibration caused by using a bigger drive *should* be moot.
The form factor already exists at 7.7" X 7.7" for AppleTV and TimeCapsule so they don't have to break any new ground to give the mini a slightly larger footprint. Also, both of those devices have 3.5" HDDs so the question of heat and vibration caused by using a bigger drive *should* be moot.
Apple TV uses a 2.5" HDD:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ard-drive.html
You were right about the Time Capsule though, a 3.5" "server-grade" HDD.
Apple TV uses a 2.5" HDD:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ard-drive.html
You were right about the Time Capsule though, a 3.5" "server-grade" HDD.
Thanks for the correction!
The new 24" LED Cinema Display? Yeah, so what? They also said all Macs going forward will have Mini DisplayPort, so that means four - Mac mini, new MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro - out of the six types of Macs, a majority, have FW400 compatibility.
You mean use it with a desktop with a dangling magsafe connector? You're saying so what when Apple puts in very large text "made precisely for a MacBook" on their site?
You mean use it with a desktop with a dangling magsafe connector? You're saying so what when Apple puts in very large text "made precisely for a MacBook" on their site?
Hah, I just edited my original post like half a second ago. I'll repost my point (which I had left out) here
Your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right [considering the new Cinema Displays nor the new MacBook Pros have any real space restrictions, yet they both dropped FW400].
Hah, I just edited my original post like half a second ago. I'll repost my point (which I had left out) here
Your original "space restraints" argument doesn't explain why Apple has been killing off FW400 left and right.
As far as I remember, the new LED cinema display is the only one that doesn't really fit the space constraint argument. Dropping FW on iPods supposedly allowed dropping a chip from the board. That might be reasonably said of the Air and regular MB, the circuit boards are pretty small. Maybe it's arguable that the port could have remained without making the products larger.
As far as I remember, the new LED cinema display is the only one that doesn't really fit the space constraint argument.
You forgot the new MacBook Pro, which also lacked a real space restriction yet dropped its FW400. I edited my post for clarity (but obviously was a bit slow on the draw again).
Dropping FW on iPods supposedly allowed dropping a chip from the board. That might be reasonably said of the Air and regular MB, the circuit boards are pretty small. Maybe it's arguable that the port could have remained without making the products larger.
I'm even trying to argue that FW400 could have fit because that's not why it is (likely) being retired on all new Macs. FW400 advantages over USB 2.0 have gone unnoticed (and unused, for that matter) by the vast majority of people who buy new Macs and the only really important advantage that consumers would actually care about - speed - has now pretty much disappeared thanks to Apple's use of faster USB 2.0 buses that come close enough to matching FW400 that most consumers who might even give FW400 a try wouldn't see the difference. Target Disk Mode and daisy-chaining aren't even on their collective radar.
FW800, on the other hand, has a very obvious speed advantage, thus it lives on.
Also of interest is that the entries for the new iMac and Mac mini are dated 2008, which may provide evidence to support claims that these systems were originally targeted for a release in the November time frame but were pushed into the first quarter of the year due to unexpected delays.
Maybe, if we are heard, Apple will use the new Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop CPU which is 20% to 30% more powerfull than an Intel Penryn quad-core desktop CPU. Let's dream on and hope that Apple listens to its customers.
Intel has officially introduced its next-generation desktop microprocessor, the Core i7, mainly known under its code-name Nehalem, on November 17, 2008. See:
Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
Intel is also planning to launch three 65W low-power desktop CPUs targeting small form factor (SFF) PCs and all-in-one PCs in the middle of January 2009. Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200s (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400s (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550s (2.83GHz/12MB L2) with prices at US$245, US$320 and US$369, respectively in thousand-unit tray quantities. See:
Intel to launch 65W desktop CPUs for all-in-one PCs @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40267/139/
But who knows, maybe Apple will implement FW800 ports in future revisions of all their Macs to edge out USB 3 whenever it comes around.
Of all the scenarios I've heard, that's the worst one.
USB3 will outpace FW800 in speed, cost and popularity.
So if that's the case Phil should just come out at MWSF and kill Firewire outright.