videocards aren't that expensive and they wouldn't have to add a bunch of money to the cost of the macbooks, a few hundred at the most, it'd be worth it.
The Macbook is a low end Mac and is for the most part, fully integrated. A Video Card could and probably would add size.
Bad idea, the touchpad is good as it is.No, there are a lot of peripherals which are FW400 and a few, like some triple bus HDs which are FW800. Adding FW800 to every Mac is a good idea though.
It's sad the new AirPort Extreme hasn't a FW400 port for an external HD instead of the USB2.
Probably there are some technical inabilities preventing the use of FW over USB2.
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Better sounding integrated speakers. Should not be difficult to do.
User accessible hard drives in units. To replace a hard drive in a mbp should not be like an episode of Home Improvement.
Bleh, Apple should leverage their partnership with Creative to create better sound in everything. While I personally don't care for the Creative Zen, they make some really nice sound cards.
I'm still surprised Apple isn't paying more attention to design of their speakers and integrated sound systems, having the iPod and iTunes under their belt, as well as software like Logic Pro, Garageband, and Soundtrack Pro.
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Sebastian
That's because you don't understand the difference between USB and FireWire.
USB uses considerable system resources to manage, versus Firewire, where the Firewire controller handles everything. Furthermore, when you need multiple streams, USB becomes entirely unwieldy. Firewire is a necessity for video, for instance. I would always go for a FireWire drive over a USB one, too.
That's because you don't understand the difference between USB and FireWire.
USB uses considerable system resources to manage, versus Firewire, where the Firewire controller handles everything. Furthermore, when you need multiple streams, USB becomes entirely unwieldy. Firewire is a necessity for video, for instance. I would always go for a FireWire drive over a USB one, too.
Fair Enough, but why would you stream Video from a Firewire port on an Airport Extreme? The USB Port will also allow for a USB Hub and a Printer as well.
But most periphreals use USB, so it makes more sense to include more USB Ports than Firewire ports. Also many ExHDDs are offering a choice between FW800, FW400, and USB 2.0, FW800 is faster and outside of Video Cameras and ExHDDs, Firewire isn't used much at all so FW800 makes more sense there as well.
Given a choice between the 2, I'd rather have Firewire 800 for when I need to jack in an ExHDD or Video Camera and USB for everything else.
Fair Enough, but why would you stream Video from a Firewire port on an Airport Extreme? The USB Port will also allow for a USB Hub and a Printer as well.
But most periphreals use USB, so it makes more sense to include more USB Ports than Firewire ports. Also many ExHDDs are offering a choice between FW800, FW400, and USB 2.0, FW800 is faster and outside of Video Cameras and ExHDDs, Firewire isn't used much at all so FW800 makes more sense there as well.
Given a choice between the 2, I'd rather have Firewire 800 for when I need to jack in an ExHDD or Video Camera and USB for everything else.
Sebastian
You're right, I didn't read the comment you're responding to, I'm sorry.
On the Airport Extreme, USB 2 makes way more sense.
The Macbook is a low end Mac and is for the most part, fully integrated. A Video Card could and probably would add size.
Sebastian
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
As GPU makers have increased transistor count, they haven't had much success with die shrinks.
Current GPUs are much larger than they were just a few years ago.
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
Intel GMA 950 (What is in both Macbook Models since than)
You can pretty much ignore all the marketing on those pages however, here's what I have in Mactracker:
The iBook:
Graphics Memory: 32 MB DDR
12.1in or 14.1in Display
1024 x 768 (Optimum) 800x600 or 640x480
Video Mirroring Only
1 Mini VGA (Compiste and S-Video with Adapter)
The Macbook:
64 MB DDR2
13.3in Glossy Widescreen
1280x800 (Native), 1152x720, 1024x768, 1024x640, 800x600, 800x500, 720x480, 640x480 at 16:10 aspect ratio; 1024x768, 800x600, and 640x480 pixeals at 4:3 ratio; 720x480 at 3:2 aspect ratio
Dual display extended and video mirroring
1 Mini-DVI (VGA, Composite and S-Video with Adapter)
Built in iSight
Guess which one I think is better off?
Well that doesn't really say a whole lot about the actual chips, but heres the raw details that I can find on their sites:
Intel GMA 950
Quote:
256-bit graphics core running at 400MHz \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\tUp to 10.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth with DDR2 667 system memory \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t1.6 GPixels/sec and 1.6 GTexels/sec fill rate \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\tUp to 224 MB maximum video memory \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t
The ATI Mobility Radeon
Quote:
4 parallel pixel pipelines
2 programmable vertex shader pipelines
128-bit dual-channel DDR memory \t\t interface
AGP8x/4x
In other words, still not a whole lot, but there isn't too much difference between them either, and since Core Image works fine, which translates into Core Animation working just fine, there isn't a need for a dedicated GPU in the Low End Macbook, especially since what came before wasn't any better, and if ATI, Intel, and NVIDIA ever agree to a standard set of Specs to show off, could actually be worst then the GMA.
Higher res screens. I'd love a 2560x1600 screen with 144ppi. That works out to 21 inches. Even 10.4 would still be useable until res-independence was a reality.
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Sebastian
Umm... as a user of both, this is not right. Firewire is faster - especially in task that involve a lot of read/write like external hd's. There are some downsides to FW400 - but speed vs. USB 2.0 is not one of them.
Umm... as a user of both, this is not right. Firewire is faster - especially in task that involve a lot of read/write like external hd's. There are some downsides to FW400 - but speed vs. USB 2.0 is not one of them.
Yes USB 2.0 is 80 Mbs faster at peak than Firewire, but I think FW is better for stuff like video, because of a better overall data rate than USB, the technical side of which is over my head, but here's a link - Link
I think that a "future physical change" for the Mac mini will have something to do with the DVD slot and the remote sensor (location, color, proximity, size).
Comments
?*Dreaming that this is an Apple leak of an early prototype of unrefind Leopard desktop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ = BumpTop 1.0
That might be a little too much for the desktop, but if just some of the things in that video could be added to the dock...
videocards aren't that expensive and they wouldn't have to add a bunch of money to the cost of the macbooks, a few hundred at the most, it'd be worth it.
The Macbook is a low end Mac and is for the most part, fully integrated. A Video Card could and probably would add size.
Sebastian
Bad idea, the touchpad is good as it is.No, there are a lot of peripherals which are FW400 and a few, like some triple bus HDs which are FW800. Adding FW800 to every Mac is a good idea though.
It's sad the new AirPort Extreme hasn't a FW400 port for an external HD instead of the USB2.
Probably there are some technical inabilities preventing the use of FW over USB2.
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Sebastian
Thought of a couple of more things:
Better sounding integrated speakers. Should not be difficult to do.
User accessible hard drives in units. To replace a hard drive in a mbp should not be like an episode of Home Improvement.
Bleh, Apple should leverage their partnership with Creative to create better sound in everything. While I personally don't care for the Creative Zen, they make some really nice sound cards.
I'm still surprised Apple isn't paying more attention to design of their speakers and integrated sound systems, having the iPod and iTunes under their belt, as well as software like Logic Pro, Garageband, and Soundtrack Pro.
Sebastian
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Sebastian
That's because you don't understand the difference between USB and FireWire.
USB uses considerable system resources to manage, versus Firewire, where the Firewire controller handles everything. Furthermore, when you need multiple streams, USB becomes entirely unwieldy. Firewire is a necessity for video, for instance. I would always go for a FireWire drive over a USB one, too.
That's because you don't understand the difference between USB and FireWire.
USB uses considerable system resources to manage, versus Firewire, where the Firewire controller handles everything. Furthermore, when you need multiple streams, USB becomes entirely unwieldy. Firewire is a necessity for video, for instance. I would always go for a FireWire drive over a USB one, too.
Fair Enough, but why would you stream Video from a Firewire port on an Airport Extreme? The USB Port will also allow for a USB Hub and a Printer as well.
But most periphreals use USB, so it makes more sense to include more USB Ports than Firewire ports. Also many ExHDDs are offering a choice between FW800, FW400, and USB 2.0, FW800 is faster and outside of Video Cameras and ExHDDs, Firewire isn't used much at all so FW800 makes more sense there as well.
Given a choice between the 2, I'd rather have Firewire 800 for when I need to jack in an ExHDD or Video Camera and USB for everything else.
Sebastian
Fair Enough, but why would you stream Video from a Firewire port on an Airport Extreme? The USB Port will also allow for a USB Hub and a Printer as well.
But most periphreals use USB, so it makes more sense to include more USB Ports than Firewire ports. Also many ExHDDs are offering a choice between FW800, FW400, and USB 2.0, FW800 is faster and outside of Video Cameras and ExHDDs, Firewire isn't used much at all so FW800 makes more sense there as well.
Given a choice between the 2, I'd rather have Firewire 800 for when I need to jack in an ExHDD or Video Camera and USB for everything else.
Sebastian
You're right, I didn't read the comment you're responding to, I'm sorry.
On the Airport Extreme, USB 2 makes way more sense.
The Macbook is a low end Mac and is for the most part, fully integrated. A Video Card could and probably would add size.
Sebastian
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
As GPU makers have increased transistor count, they haven't had much success with die shrinks.
Current GPUs are much larger than they were just a few years ago.
Again....the iBook which was on the lower end of Apple's notebook lineup had a dedicated video card. I really doubt seeing how the macbook is bigger than a 12 inch iBook that a discrete card would add size to a Macbook.
ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 (4x AGP) (What was in the last iBook)
Intel GMA 950 (What is in both Macbook Models since than)
You can pretty much ignore all the marketing on those pages however, here's what I have in Mactracker:
The iBook:
Graphics Memory: 32 MB DDR
12.1in or 14.1in Display
1024 x 768 (Optimum) 800x600 or 640x480
Video Mirroring Only
1 Mini VGA (Compiste and S-Video with Adapter)
The Macbook:
64 MB DDR2
13.3in Glossy Widescreen
1280x800 (Native), 1152x720, 1024x768, 1024x640, 800x600, 800x500, 720x480, 640x480 at 16:10 aspect ratio; 1024x768, 800x600, and 640x480 pixeals at 4:3 ratio; 720x480 at 3:2 aspect ratio
Dual display extended and video mirroring
1 Mini-DVI (VGA, Composite and S-Video with Adapter)
Built in iSight
Guess which one I think is better off?
Well that doesn't really say a whole lot about the actual chips, but heres the raw details that I can find on their sites:
Intel GMA 950
The ATI Mobility Radeon
4 parallel pixel pipelines
2 programmable vertex shader pipelines
128-bit dual-channel DDR memory \t\t interface
AGP8x/4x
In other words, still not a whole lot, but there isn't too much difference between them either, and since Core Image works fine, which translates into Core Animation working just fine, there isn't a need for a dedicated GPU in the Low End Macbook, especially since what came before wasn't any better, and if ATI, Intel, and NVIDIA ever agree to a standard set of Specs to show off, could actually be worst then the GMA.
Sebastian
Higher res screens. I'd love a 2560x1600 screen with 144ppi. That works out to 21 inches. Even 10.4 would still be useable until res-independence was a reality.
Actually USB 2.0 is faster then FW400, they made the right choice with USB 2.0, and personally I believe FW400 needs to be depreciated with FW800 in it's place. Most devices offer a choice between USB and FW400 anyways, most will likely use USB, and FW800 has 2x faster than FW400, and even faster then USB.
Sebastian
Umm... as a user of both, this is not right. Firewire is faster - especially in task that involve a lot of read/write like external hd's. There are some downsides to FW400 - but speed vs. USB 2.0 is not one of them.
Umm... as a user of both, this is not right. Firewire is faster - especially in task that involve a lot of read/write like external hd's. There are some downsides to FW400 - but speed vs. USB 2.0 is not one of them.
From what I understand:
Firewire 400: 400 Mbit/s
USB 2.0: 480 Mbit/s
Sebastian