By a quirk of fate, the firewire -missing-from-MacBook-furore (one of many, many stories on this) got me looking back on my posts and finding one that I made on exactly this day 3 years ago! Sure, I perhaps expected it faster, and I don't take credit for predicting it's demise - I'd give the credit to the CEO of Wiebetech whose article I had read.
But the signs have been getting more ominous over the last few years - no firewire syncing of iPods, iSights built-in using USB, all new camcorders (effectively) using USB, most external disks supporting USB as the basics, and of course the fact that just about all PC's (laptop or desktop) don't offer it either, and most recently lack of firewire charging of iPods and iPhones.
It seems amazing to me that people are astonished by this after this time has elapsed and when it was quite clear so long ago that this was inevitable. I give good reasons in the article, and it is not that firewire was a technical failure - just a commercial also-ran. It's also fairly clear that perhaps excepting journalists in the field with small laptops and high end camcorders, the loss is not really anything other than an imagined problem by now.
In some ways, the Apple faithful should perhaps be chastising Apple for not including an e-sata interface on the MacBook Pros! Because, surely, Firewire is clearly not going to be around forever? Otherwise, these announcements seem great to me - very very solid improvements, and a real 13" MacBookPro at MacBook prices (well, minus firewire!).
Anyway, if you didn't read it here first, then perhaps you could have done! And, perhaps I should be digging through some old posts about Apple marketshare predictions and the Guardian/Observer getting it so wrong on calling the end of iPod!
Tags: Firewire, Apple, MacBook, MacBookPro
Showing posts with label MacBookPro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MacBookPro. Show all posts
17 October 2008
18 June 2007
Waterfield Designs Laptop Luggage - The Best?
One of the pleasures of buying a new laptop is looking for new luggage to carry it in!
In my case, I need a versatile arrangement that gives my laptop protection when it's travelling with me on my Brompton bike. Occasionally, I might not have my bike, so need something a bit more businesslike. And then, there's the weekend trips. In short, I need something for every occasion.
Over 4 years ago, I bought a Waterfield Designs sleeve case for the 15" Titanium Powerbook. It has done great service and still looks as good as new. It was able to handle my slightly wider PowerbookG4 also, and so it has been used almost every day since. I got a few additions with the bag to handle other goodies too. I'm particularly pleased as to how the sleevecase has provided protection as I've ridden over bad roads around London. Apart from the quality and style, what has stood out for me with Waterfield was the initial buying experience. I got quick answers to my questions, and the most amazing thing was that after I ordered the stuff, it arrived less than 48 hours after I ordered it. That was San Francisco to London! Unbelievable.
So, while casting glances at other luggage, it was only natural I consider Waterfield Designs for my new MacBook Pro (17"). The range has been updated gradually over the years but still covers the same sort of needs. This time, I decided to add a flap to the sleevecase for those odd occasions I may just have the case and it's raining. I also got tempted by the combination deals, and decided that a Cozmo bag in addition to the sleevecase would provide a solution to every need. With this option, an extra gear pouch is included for free. With the current dollar/pound rate the whole package was pretty attractive - even with shipping, so I settled on that.
Again I got quick and clear answers to my questions. This time I took a slightly cheaper option on shipping (I still don't have the MacBook Pro). I still received the whole order in 3 days flat!
The verdict: Fantastic! These bags are really well made (they are made in San Francisco, not in some cheap labour country). They are well-thought-out with great details, and accents. They work well individually or in combination, and I know they will last. They are practical and protective, but also look great. If I need it, I also know I'll get great service. I can't recommend these guys highly enough. If you need laptop luggage, don't just look at the Apple Store.
Aside: The one frustration with packing my laptop is our stupid UK plug. It is so large in every dimension that it always causes something to bulge. Why can't someone invent a foldable UK plug whereby the prongs can fold away neatly for carrying?
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Waterfield Designs, SF Bags, Cozmo, Luggage
In my case, I need a versatile arrangement that gives my laptop protection when it's travelling with me on my Brompton bike. Occasionally, I might not have my bike, so need something a bit more businesslike. And then, there's the weekend trips. In short, I need something for every occasion.
Over 4 years ago, I bought a Waterfield Designs sleeve case for the 15" Titanium Powerbook. It has done great service and still looks as good as new. It was able to handle my slightly wider PowerbookG4 also, and so it has been used almost every day since. I got a few additions with the bag to handle other goodies too. I'm particularly pleased as to how the sleevecase has provided protection as I've ridden over bad roads around London. Apart from the quality and style, what has stood out for me with Waterfield was the initial buying experience. I got quick answers to my questions, and the most amazing thing was that after I ordered the stuff, it arrived less than 48 hours after I ordered it. That was San Francisco to London! Unbelievable.
So, while casting glances at other luggage, it was only natural I consider Waterfield Designs for my new MacBook Pro (17"). The range has been updated gradually over the years but still covers the same sort of needs. This time, I decided to add a flap to the sleevecase for those odd occasions I may just have the case and it's raining. I also got tempted by the combination deals, and decided that a Cozmo bag in addition to the sleevecase would provide a solution to every need. With this option, an extra gear pouch is included for free. With the current dollar/pound rate the whole package was pretty attractive - even with shipping, so I settled on that.
Again I got quick and clear answers to my questions. This time I took a slightly cheaper option on shipping (I still don't have the MacBook Pro). I still received the whole order in 3 days flat!
The verdict: Fantastic! These bags are really well made (they are made in San Francisco, not in some cheap labour country). They are well-thought-out with great details, and accents. They work well individually or in combination, and I know they will last. They are practical and protective, but also look great. If I need it, I also know I'll get great service. I can't recommend these guys highly enough. If you need laptop luggage, don't just look at the Apple Store.
Aside: The one frustration with packing my laptop is our stupid UK plug. It is so large in every dimension that it always causes something to bulge. Why can't someone invent a foldable UK plug whereby the prongs can fold away neatly for carrying?
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Waterfield Designs, SF Bags, Cozmo, Luggage
15 June 2007
I feel dirty...
Not because I haven't blogged for almost a month - though that, I should also be ashamed of - but, because I've just received delivery of my license for Microsoft XP Pro. Yes, you read that right.
But, do not worry, it's all in the best possible taste. I have ordered a 17" MacBook Pro and am expecting delivery next week. I will be running Windows XP on it both via BootCamp and via virtualisation. At this point, it looks like I'll be going down the VMWare Fusion route, rather than Parallels. I think VMWare is being aggressive in pricing, support and adding features as it comes from behind vs Parallels. We'll see.
I don't expect to use XP much, but I have some home automation components that haven't been updated since I stopped using an old Toshiba Libretto. My Virtual PC copies have never really worked on these items due to poor performance when doing serial operations.
I also wanted to have XP around to experiment a bit as well as to demonstrate to the great unwashed the flexibility of the Mac platform these days.
Looking back, I have bought a lot of Microsoft software over the years ranging from Multiplan, Excel/Word, followed of course by many copies of Office and Office X. I've also had Windows 95 and 98 via copies of Softwindows and Virtual PC. But these became poor when Mac OS X came along (I had to reboot into OS9 to get reasonable VPC performance).
Later this year I will undoubtedly purchase Office 2008 for Mac. I fully expect XP Pro and then Office 2008 to be the last Microsoft OS and Applications that I ever buy again.
Next up... Why XP Pro over Vista?
Tags: Apple, Microsoft, Vista, XP, Mac OS X, MacBook Pro
But, do not worry, it's all in the best possible taste. I have ordered a 17" MacBook Pro and am expecting delivery next week. I will be running Windows XP on it both via BootCamp and via virtualisation. At this point, it looks like I'll be going down the VMWare Fusion route, rather than Parallels. I think VMWare is being aggressive in pricing, support and adding features as it comes from behind vs Parallels. We'll see.
I don't expect to use XP much, but I have some home automation components that haven't been updated since I stopped using an old Toshiba Libretto. My Virtual PC copies have never really worked on these items due to poor performance when doing serial operations.
I also wanted to have XP around to experiment a bit as well as to demonstrate to the great unwashed the flexibility of the Mac platform these days.
Looking back, I have bought a lot of Microsoft software over the years ranging from Multiplan, Excel/Word, followed of course by many copies of Office and Office X. I've also had Windows 95 and 98 via copies of Softwindows and Virtual PC. But these became poor when Mac OS X came along (I had to reboot into OS9 to get reasonable VPC performance).
Later this year I will undoubtedly purchase Office 2008 for Mac. I fully expect XP Pro and then Office 2008 to be the last Microsoft OS and Applications that I ever buy again.
Next up... Why XP Pro over Vista?
Tags: Apple, Microsoft, Vista, XP, Mac OS X, MacBook Pro
14 November 2006
MacBook Pro C2D Video Performance
In my recent quick first impressions of the MacBook Pro C2D I mentioned about doing some video tests. Here are some results.
Test Machine 1: MacBook Pro C2D 2.33Ghz, 2GB, 160GB 5400 rpm drive.
Test Machine 2: Powerbook G4 1.67Ghz hires, 1.5GB, 120GB 5400 rpm drive.
The Powerbook had been running for some time, and dashboard apps had been loaded. But all other apps had been quit. Free disk space is down to about 11GB though. On the MBP, no other apps were running in my space, but I was in Fast user switching mode with mail and safari running in the other user's space.
Test:
I took a 1.32 minute DV file from a camcorder and converted it to H.264 at 640 by 480 resolution with "Go Nuts" quality (ie ultimate) using the wonderful utility iSquint (v 1.5). I also specified De-interlace (otherwise a PAL DV looks real bad), and set size to 1500kbps (max possible for iPod ready movies). I checked both movies for quality and compatibility with a first gen iPod video. Both movies were superb, similar in end size and were sharper than the DV file though lacking in a bit of detail (eg trees were sharper, but tyre treads were less detailed).
Result:
The MBP completed the conversion in 2 minutes and 24 seconds. The Powerbook G4 took 10 minutes and 53 seconds. A factor of 4.5 times slower. In addition the MBP had around 20% idle time for most of the test. The Powerbook had zero idle time throughout running on max. Presumably (though I did not try) I could have done a few less demanding tasks on the MBP.
When performing the same task at 320x240 resolution (native iPod) the file was converted in faster than realtime on the MBP - 64 seconds (for a 92 second file) versus around 5 minutes on the Powerbook G4. An interesting aside is that the end result files whether 640x480 or 320x240 are the same total size - the key being the data rate I guess which is the same 1500kbps. So, no disk space penalty for having iPod-compatible files at 640x480 resolution (though a time penalty for conversion).
While limited to one application (iSquint) this confirms my original view that the new MBP's are massively improved over the last generation Powerbook G4s. This factor of 4.5x plus headroom is very impressive indeed.
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Core 2 Duo, Intel, iSquint, H.264
Test Machine 1: MacBook Pro C2D 2.33Ghz, 2GB, 160GB 5400 rpm drive.
Test Machine 2: Powerbook G4 1.67Ghz hires, 1.5GB, 120GB 5400 rpm drive.
The Powerbook had been running for some time, and dashboard apps had been loaded. But all other apps had been quit. Free disk space is down to about 11GB though. On the MBP, no other apps were running in my space, but I was in Fast user switching mode with mail and safari running in the other user's space.
Test:
I took a 1.32 minute DV file from a camcorder and converted it to H.264 at 640 by 480 resolution with "Go Nuts" quality (ie ultimate) using the wonderful utility iSquint (v 1.5). I also specified De-interlace (otherwise a PAL DV looks real bad), and set size to 1500kbps (max possible for iPod ready movies). I checked both movies for quality and compatibility with a first gen iPod video. Both movies were superb, similar in end size and were sharper than the DV file though lacking in a bit of detail (eg trees were sharper, but tyre treads were less detailed).
Result:
The MBP completed the conversion in 2 minutes and 24 seconds. The Powerbook G4 took 10 minutes and 53 seconds. A factor of 4.5 times slower. In addition the MBP had around 20% idle time for most of the test. The Powerbook had zero idle time throughout running on max. Presumably (though I did not try) I could have done a few less demanding tasks on the MBP.
When performing the same task at 320x240 resolution (native iPod) the file was converted in faster than realtime on the MBP - 64 seconds (for a 92 second file) versus around 5 minutes on the Powerbook G4. An interesting aside is that the end result files whether 640x480 or 320x240 are the same total size - the key being the data rate I guess which is the same 1500kbps. So, no disk space penalty for having iPod-compatible files at 640x480 resolution (though a time penalty for conversion).
While limited to one application (iSquint) this confirms my original view that the new MBP's are massively improved over the last generation Powerbook G4s. This factor of 4.5x plus headroom is very impressive indeed.
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Core 2 Duo, Intel, iSquint, H.264
09 November 2006
MacBook Pro C2D First Impressions
As I mentioned last week, my partner's tired old Titanium Powerbook G4 was stolen on about the same day the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros (MBP) were announced - perhaps the only silver lining to that event.
We eventually placed her order on the Apple Education store last Wednesday, and received the machine yesterday - under a week, and all the way from Shanghai. The machine is a 2.33Ghz, 2GB RAM model with 160GB hard drive.
I was interested to do a quick comparison with my last-generation Powerbook G4 Hi-res that I got about a year ago to see how much things have changed. My, what a difference!
To look at, there's very little that's obvious, though the new model is noticeably thinner (and a tad wider). Due to the addition of a Firewire800 port on the new MBP model, it actually looks closer to the Powerbook than the first MBP model. Because of the thinness, the DVD slot is quite low - which looks a little odd. With the PB, the slot and screen-release button are aligned neatly, something which I'm sure makes Jonathan Ive happy. But only a true geek would be able to instantly identify a MBP over a last-gen PBG4 from a glance.
Inside, of course is a different story. I was interested in the hard drive model used. There has been a bit of criticism of Apple's failure to provide a 7200rpm option in the new model. But I had guessed that the 160GB option at 5400rpm would use perpendicular technology. By closer packing of the bits, this actually means the 25% slower rotation is essentially negated by the being able to read more bits. While I don't have the data to prove it, I would imagine a 5400rpm 160GB drive would perform not far off a 100GB 7200rpm drive for most situations.
Well, I'm pleased to report that the drive in this model is a Hitachi perpendicular device, and it's XBench disk scores were considerably better than my 1 year old Seagate 120GB 5400 rpm disk (which itself was well-reviewed). While some of the difference is undoubtedly down to my disk being much fuller than the MBP, I'm sure the Hitachi performs admirably indeed. Sure, if someone made a 7200rpm 160GB disk, that would be great. But right now, I don't think they do. So, with the 160GB I think most people will be happy, and it would make sense for Apple not to offer a lower capacity 7200rpm drive. (Not sure about the 200GB 4200rpm drive though).
The new MBP screen (we went for the matte one), is just wonderful, and seems quite a bit brighter than my hi-res Powerbook (which itself was supposedly much brighter than the previous PB). It does lack 60 pixels in height (due to inclusion of the iSight I guess), but that gives it a slightly better fit to wide-screen movies.
Airport reception seems much improved. I've never been able to see other networks from our home with our powerbooks or mac mini. But I saw 3 others with the MBP. It's a pity the Apple Airport Monitor application does not seem to work on Intel macs (well it works, but it doesn't graph). So I can't see it's real throughput.
But of course, the key differences are not about the hard drive, screen or airport, it's about performance and there is no question this machine is massively faster. Xbench scores were nearly all around 2x better, with many between 3x and 4x improved. The user interface test gave a 10x improvement. While my Powerbook has slightly less RAM (1.5GB) and had a couple of apps running, with an 80% full hard disk, I don't think this would have accounted for too much of the difference (and I'm not about to do a clean install to find out).
But I'm not interested in benchmarks like this per se. Real world use is what's important, and the new MBP flies. Web pages are rendered incredibly quickly. Perhaps that will slow down as caches etc fill up (at least that's my past experience), but it is really near-instantaneous now. I converted an MP3 file at 168kbps VBR to a 160kbps AAC to see how quickly it would do it. All done in 8 seconds. The exact same operation took 25 seconds on the PB. The whole user interface felt very responsive indeed including using Dashboard.
I'm quite critical of a lot of the performance tests run on by many publications. For instance, I've seen a lot of stuff written that multi-core computers don't help much if the application isn't properly multi-threaded. But that completely ignores the fact that most people these days are doing several things on their computer at once. My ideal Mac would be something that converts video/music quickly while letting me surf and work as fast as usual. I'd like a Mac that can record off EyeTV while letting me do my usual work without penalty. Mixing usage like that slows my current PB down significantly, and I have avoided doing much video work. Right now I have 10 applications open and some of those are doing simultaneous work. So, a note to testers out there - create some real-life performance tests with mixed usage, please!
I'll be doing a few H.264 conversions over the next few days and seeing how those stack up. I think there will be a huge improvement there.
But right now, I'd say this machine is an incredible leap forward - by both Intel and Apple. For a quite a bit less than I paid just 12 months ago (helped by a great education price admittedly), there's a machine with 2-3x real-world performance improvements, 40GB extra storage, 0.5GB extra RAM, built-in iSight and Magsafe. I don't think it's just about the PowerPC G4 being long-in-the-tooth - I suspect similar performance gains would be seen against last year's single-core Pentium M models.
I made my own decision last year (failing to anticipate that the MBP's would come along so quickly!), and so will stick with my existing PB until next year. Then we should have the Intel "Santa Rosa" platform inside bumping bus speeds to 800Mhz, adding flash storage for performance/battery life gains, as well as 802.11n, WiMax and other wireless technology support. Perhaps with Leopard supporting resolution independence, we'll also see some full HD models too? I'm looking at around Easter for all of this excitement, assuming I can wait!
If there's anything you'd like to know, do post a comment here and I'll see if I can "borrow" the machine again for a bit of "investigative" blogging!
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Core 2 Duo, Intel
We eventually placed her order on the Apple Education store last Wednesday, and received the machine yesterday - under a week, and all the way from Shanghai. The machine is a 2.33Ghz, 2GB RAM model with 160GB hard drive.
I was interested to do a quick comparison with my last-generation Powerbook G4 Hi-res that I got about a year ago to see how much things have changed. My, what a difference!
To look at, there's very little that's obvious, though the new model is noticeably thinner (and a tad wider). Due to the addition of a Firewire800 port on the new MBP model, it actually looks closer to the Powerbook than the first MBP model. Because of the thinness, the DVD slot is quite low - which looks a little odd. With the PB, the slot and screen-release button are aligned neatly, something which I'm sure makes Jonathan Ive happy. But only a true geek would be able to instantly identify a MBP over a last-gen PBG4 from a glance.
Inside, of course is a different story. I was interested in the hard drive model used. There has been a bit of criticism of Apple's failure to provide a 7200rpm option in the new model. But I had guessed that the 160GB option at 5400rpm would use perpendicular technology. By closer packing of the bits, this actually means the 25% slower rotation is essentially negated by the being able to read more bits. While I don't have the data to prove it, I would imagine a 5400rpm 160GB drive would perform not far off a 100GB 7200rpm drive for most situations.
Well, I'm pleased to report that the drive in this model is a Hitachi perpendicular device, and it's XBench disk scores were considerably better than my 1 year old Seagate 120GB 5400 rpm disk (which itself was well-reviewed). While some of the difference is undoubtedly down to my disk being much fuller than the MBP, I'm sure the Hitachi performs admirably indeed. Sure, if someone made a 7200rpm 160GB disk, that would be great. But right now, I don't think they do. So, with the 160GB I think most people will be happy, and it would make sense for Apple not to offer a lower capacity 7200rpm drive. (Not sure about the 200GB 4200rpm drive though).
The new MBP screen (we went for the matte one), is just wonderful, and seems quite a bit brighter than my hi-res Powerbook (which itself was supposedly much brighter than the previous PB). It does lack 60 pixels in height (due to inclusion of the iSight I guess), but that gives it a slightly better fit to wide-screen movies.
Airport reception seems much improved. I've never been able to see other networks from our home with our powerbooks or mac mini. But I saw 3 others with the MBP. It's a pity the Apple Airport Monitor application does not seem to work on Intel macs (well it works, but it doesn't graph). So I can't see it's real throughput.
But of course, the key differences are not about the hard drive, screen or airport, it's about performance and there is no question this machine is massively faster. Xbench scores were nearly all around 2x better, with many between 3x and 4x improved. The user interface test gave a 10x improvement. While my Powerbook has slightly less RAM (1.5GB) and had a couple of apps running, with an 80% full hard disk, I don't think this would have accounted for too much of the difference (and I'm not about to do a clean install to find out).
But I'm not interested in benchmarks like this per se. Real world use is what's important, and the new MBP flies. Web pages are rendered incredibly quickly. Perhaps that will slow down as caches etc fill up (at least that's my past experience), but it is really near-instantaneous now. I converted an MP3 file at 168kbps VBR to a 160kbps AAC to see how quickly it would do it. All done in 8 seconds. The exact same operation took 25 seconds on the PB. The whole user interface felt very responsive indeed including using Dashboard.
I'm quite critical of a lot of the performance tests run on by many publications. For instance, I've seen a lot of stuff written that multi-core computers don't help much if the application isn't properly multi-threaded. But that completely ignores the fact that most people these days are doing several things on their computer at once. My ideal Mac would be something that converts video/music quickly while letting me surf and work as fast as usual. I'd like a Mac that can record off EyeTV while letting me do my usual work without penalty. Mixing usage like that slows my current PB down significantly, and I have avoided doing much video work. Right now I have 10 applications open and some of those are doing simultaneous work. So, a note to testers out there - create some real-life performance tests with mixed usage, please!
I'll be doing a few H.264 conversions over the next few days and seeing how those stack up. I think there will be a huge improvement there.
But right now, I'd say this machine is an incredible leap forward - by both Intel and Apple. For a quite a bit less than I paid just 12 months ago (helped by a great education price admittedly), there's a machine with 2-3x real-world performance improvements, 40GB extra storage, 0.5GB extra RAM, built-in iSight and Magsafe. I don't think it's just about the PowerPC G4 being long-in-the-tooth - I suspect similar performance gains would be seen against last year's single-core Pentium M models.
I made my own decision last year (failing to anticipate that the MBP's would come along so quickly!), and so will stick with my existing PB until next year. Then we should have the Intel "Santa Rosa" platform inside bumping bus speeds to 800Mhz, adding flash storage for performance/battery life gains, as well as 802.11n, WiMax and other wireless technology support. Perhaps with Leopard supporting resolution independence, we'll also see some full HD models too? I'm looking at around Easter for all of this excitement, assuming I can wait!
If there's anything you'd like to know, do post a comment here and I'll see if I can "borrow" the machine again for a bit of "investigative" blogging!
Tags: Apple, MacBook Pro, Core 2 Duo, Intel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
