Dedicated to my late brave, beautiful and silly mummy, Debra Ross. I love you mumster.

Skip navigation

Category archive for hardware

Because archives are so much easier than having just hundreds of posts on the home page. I learned that the hard way.

MacBook a winner, unless you need FireWire

The MacBook FireWire Debacle

When I claimed this was going to be the last post on the MacBook FireWire Debacle, I didn’t think another writer would share a similar view to me on this issue. This will be the last post! Ironically, I found about this USAToday article through Apple’s official start page which chose to summarise the article as such:

Apple, says Edward C. Baig (usatoday.com), “has fashioned a winner with the new MacBook.” The new model features a “bold new metal design with a glossy backlit widescreen LED display, spacious buttonless trackpad and souped-up Nvidia graphics for gamers.” In fact, Baig reports being “pleased with the detail and fluid motion as I played Spore from Electronic Arts and Call of Duty 4 from Activision.

Conveniently they didn’t disclose any of Edward’s comments regarding the lack of a FireWire port, and the less than adequate number of USB ports as replacements:

But Apple risks ticking off users who rely on FireWire. Like many people, I still have a FireWire camcorder, not to mention an external FireWire hard drive. Apple may want to drive customers to the FireWire-capable MacBook Pro — models that start at $1,999 — which are certainly better equipped for video editing.

The company also figures many of the folks who would do a lot of video editing own newer camcorders that more likely use USB rather than FireWire. Apple isn’t generous there, either: There are just two USB ports on the new MacBooks.

You can still get FireWire on the entry-level plastic MacBook, but it doesn’t have the muscle for heavy-duty video editing.

Exactly! I am so fed up with reading comments from people that tell people who can’t afford a MacBook Pro to buy an older MacBook that still has FireWire for video editing, or that people who need FireWire should buy a MacBook Pro. Not everyone is swimming in money.

If you think I’ve started to dislike Apple though over this hiccup, the last line of Edward’s article pretty much sums up my own opinion:

Apple has fashioned a winner with the new MacBook. Unless you can’t live without FireWire.

The penultimate plus one MacBook FireWire post

The MacBook FireWire Debacle

Much to delight of most of the people who read this blog I’m sure, we’ve come to the end of my coverage of the MacBook FireWire Debacle. I’ve learned so much over the last few days about the FireWire 400 standard, especially with regards to it’s uses in audio and video production that I knew very little about. The removal of this port from MacBooks is a real shame, though it’s probably time to face the facts and admit that the MacBook won’t ever have FireWire again; it’s future in the Mac Mini and iMac are probably also shady.

At least I can tell people they can still buy svelte new Japanese laptops and load them up with FreeBSD if they need a current and inexpensive FireWire solution.

As I said I could easily post dozens more posts on this subject, but I think I’ve already said enough. If you’re still interested though, there’s still some extremely active discussion (more active than I’ve ever seen before after an Apple product launch) going on across web forums, blogs and news sites which I’ve linked to below.

Don’t forgot, if you want FireWire in the MacBooks again, you can send feedback directly to Apple. Steve Jobs has already responded to at least two comments sent, so let’s raise some more hell!

News and articles

Web forums

MacBook FireWire Debacle posts

Addressing some MacBook FireWire arguments

The MacBook FireWire Debacle

ASIDE: I had not intended my critique of Apple’s disastrous decision not to include FireWire on their MacBooks to become a multiple post saga, but the more I learn about this decision and the more I read up upon it, the more I think this really is a mistake.

We love Apple’s products and we want them to succeed, so we think this really is a terrible decision. We know Apple will probably ignore us, but it’s worth a shot generating some noise right?

In today’s investigation of the MacBook FireWire Debacle, I’ll be looking into some of the arguments that seem to appear time and time again in every 600 page MacBook FireWire removal forum thread across the intertubes.

Removing FireWire it is the same as removing the floppy drive on the iMac.
This question went first, because I can tell rebuttals of my responses below would probably discuss obsolescence and the idea you can still buy older versions.

That there is a substantial difference between getting rid of a floppy drive or other legacy devices, and getting rid of FireWire. In the case of the floppy drive, CD burners and the “super floppies” (LZ120, Zip) were clearly superior replacements, and you could buy inexpensive USB floppy drives. With these MacBooks, USB 2.0 is the only possible replacement, and it’s not superior.

Most people I know have never heard of FireWire
Most people I know have. And if they haven’t, tech savvy friends or family have bought them FireWire drives for use with Time Machine, camcorders for iMovie etc. Would the removal of a port to save a few dollars make up for the money they would lose from customers holding off purchases?
You can just buy a USB 2.0 to FireWire cable
Even if we assumed such devices for Mac exist (and I’m not sure they do), they would not address the underlying problem. Serial and ADB to USB adaptors worked because USB is an improvement.
Grilled cheese sandwiches taste great with maple syrup and hot fudge
I’ll have to take your word on that.
If you can afford expensive FireWire cameras, you can afford to buy the MacBook Pro which has FireWire.
Many professional users use powerful desktop computers, and a more lightweight laptop for when they need to go. For many, the MacBook Pro is simply too big and heavy.

The statement is a tad arrogant. Given people who buy MacBooks are buying them because they’re cheaper, doesn’t it make sense that said customers would also be less able to buy new audio and video equipment too that might be older and only have FireWire ports? The primary school right here in my suburb use MacBooks and MiniDV video cameras. MiniDV cameras can only use FireWire. What about them?

It also amounts to false advertising: Apple bundles their machines with iLife which include two consumer-grade video editing applications. Their prosumer Final Cut Express is also targeted at a similar market. What about the thousands of consumer video cameras that use FireWire?

This really isn’t a big deal. The financial crisis, world hunger, hello?
True. But as a person who knows about, endorses and uses this standard I feel as though I’m in the position of letting people know. And by that definition, really nothing else matters right now!
Apple still sells the older MacBook with FireWire
The older, heavier hardware version with the 5x slower graphics performance and slower front-side bus? For how long will they be available? And isn’t it ironic and counter intuitive that someone would tell you to buy an older version of a product because it has faster ports than the newer one?
Complaining on your blog or on forums isn’t going to make Apple change.
This is probably the only argument that makes some sense. It’s true Apple probably doesn’t care. This is why it’s important to have as many people as possible talking about it, and more importantly sending feedback to Apple. Even gigantic corporations such as Apple aren’t completely immune from the demands of their customers.

Obituary for FireWire 1999-2008

The MacBook FireWire Debacle

It’s not often I simply republish a post I find on someone else’s blog or website, but this particular piece was one of the most well written entries I’ve ever read, and particularly fitting given my own opinions of the MacBook FireWire debacle over the last few days.

Kyle Buckley on the The Nillabyte Perspective has a fantastic article on Apple’s lost interest in the FireWire standard with the new MacBooks, and what we can assume other future products. It’s appropriately titled The FireWire Obituary, and while I probably could have summarised it in only a few lines, I feel as though it’s just too well written to chop up.

If you’re interested in FireWire’s history, what it has been used in, and it’s now uncertain future in consumer devices, take a gander.

FireWire was born on January 7, 1999 in San Francisco when Steve Jobs introduced the break-through serial interface at Macworld.

At the time FireWire was born, the two most used serial connections were SCSI and USB 1. USB connections were simple, but both SCSI and USB were extremely slow when transferring data. The birth of FireWire brought transfer rates up to 400 Mbps.

The incredibly fast and sustained transfer data rate of FireWire was instrumental in the boom of digital cameras and digital camcorders. The speedy and reliable FireWire allowed for transfers of uncompressed digital content with no loss of quality. For this reason alone, the FireWire standard had been adopted by nearly every professional in the audio/video industry.

The talents of FireWire were not witnessed only by professionals–consumers were also deeply touched by FireWire’s capabilities. Consumers quickly fell in love with the protocol and soon more and more computers shipped with the precocious FireWire included. Not only did consumers use FireWire for home video and audio, they also used it for external storage devices since it offered a much faster transfer rate.

The popularity of FireWire was soon threatened when, in April of 2000, USB 2.0 was born. The new version of USB boasted transfer rates up to 480 Mbps, 80 Mbps faster than FireWire. This speed was quickly proven to be manqué and not founded in reality. USB 2.0 transfer speeds rarely surpass 250 Mbps due to USB 2.0 being riddled with ADD and needing constant parent supervision from the CPU. FireWire on the other hand is well disciplined and requires no supervision and can therefore be as fast as it is designed to be.

FireWire continued to have success for years. On October 12, 2005, however, FireWire received a severe blow when Apple dropped FireWire support from its 5th generation iPod. It is not known what FireWire ever did to Steve Jobs to deserve such a shun. Appearing as if Apple was disowning FireWire, more manufactures began to focus more on USB connectivity. Digital camcorders began using different protocol, which results in an inferior compressed video format that can be used with USB 2.0. Several USB enabled external hard drives began to saturate the market and finding FireWire among the USB infestation became the “Where’s Waldo” of peripheral connection types.

Yesterday, October 14th 2008, Steve Jobs introduced the new Apple MacBook with no FireWire capabilities. Apple had been the largest supporter of FireWire, and this abandonment was the final nail in the coffin, thus sealing FireWire’s fate. During his keynote, Mr. Jobs failed to mention the death.

The death of FireWire is mourned by many audio/video professionals as well as consumers who firmly believe that USB 2.0 is a bastardization of peripheral connection types.

Apple’s tragic FireWire MacBook mistake

The MacBook FireWire Debacle

In a previous post I discussed Apple’s new designs for the MacBook and MacBook Pro and how I’m absolutely head over heals in love with the new designs. Despite the obvious advance in their manufacturing process, graphics performance in the Pro and other refinements, their decision to only ship glossy screens has caused a veritable uproar.

If you’re a young women around my age, or a bit older or younger, who society perhaps considers quiet, who enjoys coffee, jazz, anime and/or computers, and who prefers enjoying a glass of wine to bingeing overpriced novelty spirits or beer, don’t think my "love" for these designs is a be-all, end-all situation. :-).

It’s my belief though that the removal of the FireWire port entirely from the consumer MacBook machine is even more of a mistake, and could potentially embarrass Apple more than anything else they’ve ever done.

Firstly we have to put this decision into context. Apple has made no secret of their about-face displeasure with the FireWire 400 port; despite my original iMac, iMac DV and iBook G3 all purchased before 2002 having the ports, the iPod long since stopped support for the port in favour of USB 2.0. This despite the fact FireWire was actually created and marketed by Apple in the first place!

New MacBook homepage from my iPhone this afternoon
New MacBook homepage from my iPhone this afternoon

We must also remember that Apple has a history of being ahead of the rest of the industry when it comes to shedding legacy ports and components from their computers: the venerable floppy drive, parallel ports, serial ports and waffle irons for example. These ports and devices were on the low end of their respective product lines and could easily be replicated with USB adaptors, and because of USB’s higher bandwidth capabilities, little to no performance loss would be incurred as a result.

Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2

Steve Jobs in response to the FireWire 400 MacBook controversy

By comparison, FireWire 400 is not a low end port, the architecture cannot be easily replicated with USB adaptors, and even if it could there would be a performance hit because despite FireWire 400’s marginally slower transfer speed on paper, it clearly outperforms USB 2.0 in sustained data transfers. This is why many large external hard drives and camcorders use FireWire, despite Mr Jobs’ assertion above.

FireWire logo What’s troubling from a publicity standpoint here is the potential mess Apple could find itself in with regards to consumer video. Each Mac they ship proudly comes bundled with iLife which includes iMovie and iDVD; clearly they want consumers to be able to create and edit video. How many buyers of MacBooks will take their shiny new computers home only to realise the camcorder which may or may not have cost them a small fortune isn’t even supported by the computer that advertises itself as video friendly? I’d hesitate to say a class action lawsuit would result, but as companies operating in the Internet age know by now (or if they don’t they’re doomed) is that word of mouth recommendations and complaints can make or break purchasing decisions.

I haven’t even addressed the issue regarding Target Disk Mode and what a headache it will be for tech support workers to diagnose and repair problems on these new machines. Suffice to say, I think not including FireWire in the latest MacBook, something which even my iBook G3 from 2002 even has, is a huge mistake. I guess we’ll wait and see.

As a disclaimer, I’m a MacBook Pro user because I so desperately need the extra screen real estate and graphics performance, and the latest MacBook Pro retains it’s backwards compatible FireWire 800 port, so I’m certainly not complaining simply because I’m afraid I won’t have support for my own devices.

New aluminium block MacBook Pros are nice, mostly!

Unless you live under an electronic rock, you would have seen Apple released with much fanfare their new designs for their MacBook and MacBook Pro notebook computers. The new designs have certainly generated a lot of controversy, and I’ll be addressing some of the concerns here. I’ll try not to babble on too much about how I’d love to have one :-).

ASIDE: Apple is often accused of generating more publicity than people can handle or wish to be inundated with, and news agencies and bloggers are often accused of pandering to them by supplying them with free advertising. I’m glad I’m not one of those people.

Both the MacBook and MacBook Pro now share a similar metal design, gone is the plastic on the MacBook and gone is the plastic trim on the MacBook Pro which has been with it since the PowerBook days. The new laptop cases utilise aluminium block construction which entails the shape, port holes and recessed keyboard areas to be cut with precision equipment from a single slab of aluminium. We’re being told that this results in a firmer and stronger case that is also more lightweight as a result of using less connectors.

Jonathan Ive (Apple’s head of design) hosts an extremely impressive video of the manufacturing process including video of the aluminium rolling along the factory on the Apple website which you can watch.

MacBook manufacturing video by Apple
MacBook manufacturing video by Apple

The display is perhaps the most controversial change. Both the MacBook and MacBook Pro now sport glossy displays that match the black bezel design of the current iMac; and just like the current iMac there is no option whatsoever for matte screens.

I use a matte screen original generation MacBook Pro with a glossy screen protector film because gloss works wonders with colour richness and especially improves black tones. However when I’m editing photos I take the glossy film off because I know the colours I see through a glossy film are a much less accurate representation of what the colour will appear as on paper, and on other computer screens. This seems to be the primary reason for the resulting negative comments and uproar over the display: many professional users whom the MacBook Pro targets won’t be able to use these laptops. I can’t help but wonder if the folks at Apple are really shooting themselves in the foot with this move.

Glare seems to be less of an issue though. While the screen is made of glass and is more reflective than many bathroom mirrors, the brightness is so… bright that it will still be easy enough to read even with other surrounding light sources competing. As someone who uses a glossy screened iPhone outdoors and never has trouble reading what’s being displayed, I give credence to this argument, but I’d like to see a MacBook display for myself first before making up my mind.


Seems not many people on MacRumours are impressed!

Aside from these drastic cosmetic changes, arguably the biggest alteration to the MacBook Pro is the inclusion of dual graphics processing units, one dedicated and one on-board. With Snow Leopard’s Grand Central function which will let applications use idle processing power on GPUs as well as CPUs this is huge news. It also means the MacBook Pro could really be considered a workstation class graphics machine for mobile users when previously it tended to lag behind offerings from other vendors by a few months. Again I’m holding final judgement until some benchmarks are in.

The other controversy surrounds Apple’s changes to the ports on the machine. The ports have been moved from both sides of the case to just the left hand side, and has moved the optical drive from the front to the right hand side. With less space for ports, Apple has introduced another new connector called the Mini DisplayPort which will no doubt result in the need to buy yet another dongle to convert between a mini port and the full sized port for use in this case with external displays.

Sticking with two USB 2.0 ports and the FireWire 800, Apple also removed the FireWire 400 port entirely from both machines. On the MacBook Pro this isn’t an issue; the previous MacBook Pro FW800 and FW400 ports shared an internal bus anyway and the FW800 is backwards compatible, meaning if you daisy chain FW800 and FW400 devices off this one port the result in performance will probably be the same. I’ll be dedicating an entire post to the boneheaded decision to delete FireWire entirely from the MacBook in another post.

New MacBook Pros on my classic MacBook Pro
New MacBook and MacBook Pro, on my classic MacBook Pro taken at Adelaide Airport. If you look closely you can see a reflection of an airport sign in the centre left of the screen.

Overall despite these minor shortcomings, I’m still really impressed with these new machines, and if anything these introductions only strengthen my belief that Apple is the only non-Japanese computer manufacturer that really puts their heart and soul into each product design. These computers aren’t just computers, they’re works of art, and I can’t wait to get one.. eventually! If you’re willing to purchase me a brand new aluminium block MacBook Pro, feel free to post a comment and I’ll forward you my address.

Danke. Arigato. Thank you. Terimah Kassih.

Nobody will ever need 16GiB, right?

Screenshot of Angus Kidman's ZDnet Australia column earlier today
Screenshot of Angus Kidman’s ZDnet Australia column earlier today

Angus Kidman writes for ZDnet Australia in his Snorage [sic] column, named as such because in his words: "if everyone thinks storage is so boring, how come we always want more of it? Go on — you know size matters."

Well apparently he does think that sometimes size doesn’t matter, and has gone on record to suggest that nobody would need more than 16GiB of memory in their phones. From the article:

Pronouncing that a given device doesn’t need any more storage is a near-foolproof recipe for looking stupid somewhere down the line. However, I’m sceptical that many people need a 16GB mini-SD card for their phone.

SanDisk next month will start offering a 16GB microSD card, which — unsurprisingly given the format — is aimed at the mobile phone market.

That amount of capacity inevitably leads to the question: how are you supposed to fill up that space? Pictures might be one potential answer, but 16GB will give you a hell of a lot of semi-quality phone shots. Indeed, the whole Pictures folder on my PC doesn’t take up that much space.

But if this is you, then I suggest you re-compress your movies into a more screen-friendly alternative and stop overloading your PowerPoint presentations with meaningless graphics. Save the capacity for where you really can use it — on a desktop PC where the OS will reclaim it in the blink of an eye.

At least he made one valid point in his introduction: storage ceiling predictions are almost universally wrong. I don’t think I need to bring up the old Bill Gates 640KB of RAM chestnut again to demonstrate!

The fact of the matter is we used to think that the diminutive amount of space on a SIM card would be enough for mobile phone users. After all, you can store a few thousand contact numbers on one, what more could you possibly want to put on a phone? Then people started demanding the ability to store more than just numbers about their contacts, then they started demanding the ability to do calendering and other organiser like functions to replace the PDAs they had to carry in addition to their phones. Now we have GPS, mobile internet pages, conferencing, Twitter and instant messaging, streaming music and static audio files, video, photos and graphics, office productivity applications, grilled cheese sandwich makers, waffle irons, nuclear reactors and Secret Squirrel automobiles in our phones, and who knows what we’ll have in another few years?

We can have a philosophical discussion on whether or not such things are useful for a phone to do or whether they’re counter-productive and restrictive until the cows come home, but the fact is people are doing more with their phones now than we could have ever imagined even a decade ago let alone when the first portable phones were released.

MicroSD card size comparison
Photo I took this evening, comparing a sim card, MicroSD card and an audio CD. I still can’t believe how tiny these cards are!

Mr Kidman argues he can’t foresee any use for 16GiB of memory for a phone and therefore doesn’t see the point of it at all. Just like how 10 years ago nobody thought you would need more storage space than what SIM cards offered. It might be true now that only a few people have oodles of data (I like the word oodles) on their phones, but that’s not to say that therefore nobody does, or that nobody will in the future.

I’m fascinated by storage; it’s the reason why I spend so much of my free time researching new storage technologies as well as vanilla file and multimedia compression standards, encryption, efficiency and data centres. I’m fascinated by how far we’ve come in storage capacity, density and size since computing began, and am excited by where we’ll be going next. I thoroughly enjoy reading Angus Kidman’s column because I can tell he shares the same passion, but this time he does seem a bit far off.

For what it’s worth, I’m typing this post on my 16GiB iPhone 3G which is 95% full, so I know of what I speak! Then again I am weird in that way. I mean wired. I mean, wireless, this is a phone we’re talking about. A mobile phone not a terrestrial phone. Terrestrial sounds like terrorist, better make sure I don’t get blocked in some countries for that remark. Remark sounds like Renmark, a town in South Australia. Which is convenient, because this post went south with this last paragraph it seems. Seams, that reminds me, I need to have my slacks repaired. Or should I just buy new ones? Ones and zeros… just like file storage. See, I did come back to the point of this post, even if it was at the very end.

My kingdom for a bigger notebook hard drive

An ominous sign of things to come?
An ominous sign of things to come?

It’s crunch time: alas after months of neglect and with so many assignments and projects active and being worked on at any one time, my internal 149 gibibyte (aka 160 gigabyte) hard drive has finally been maxed out. Bummer!

Having used Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Mac OS X on computers with drives that are nearing breaking point, I do appreciate how incredibly stable the BSDs and Mac are under capacity stress. By comparison the general wisdom with Windows (at least when I still exclusively used it before 2003) was that you must reserve at least 10% of your drive at all time to maintain stability, NTFS included. By comparison, this MacBook Pro has been close full for a while now and still only EyeTV and the slow as molasses Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac applications are capable of crashing it.

As I’ve discovered the hard way though, notebook computers present their own set of storage challenges! For most of my life I’ve been a desktop computer user; it was only in 2006 when I made the decision as a computer science student studying overseas that a souped up notebook computer would make more sense for taking around to different houses and around campus than a new desktop.

Of course the problem with said notebook computers is that you can’t just easily slide in an extra hard drive when your existing one starts to fill up! Sure you can buy external drives, but they still won’t match the performance of the internal drive. What happens then is I tend to backup material to the external drives, but projects I’m compiling, editing video for or otherwise working on end up staying on the internal drive.

VMware Fusion 2.0 beta 2 New Virtual Machine Assistant
What can I say, I love toying around and exploring operating systems!

This is also a problem for virtual machines which I spend lots of time using and writing about. To satisfy my own addiction and fanaticism for studying operating systems, as well as for my work which involves compiling and testing applications, I have multiple VMs on this internal drive. Running these virtual machines on an external drive is completely out of the question given the performance would really, really suffer. Having 12 virtual machines which combined take up 72GiB on a 149GiB notebook drive though is also completely out of the question!

With my desktops in the past I tended to dedicate a smaller drive with the fastest RPM for the operating system and two larger, equally sized drives mirroring each other (later using RAID instead of software) for the data. On my current desktop back in Singapore which I SSH and SFTP into from here in Adelaide I have FreeBSD 7.0 AMD64 on its own dedicated, 10,000RPM SATAII drive with 32MiB of cache shared with binaries, and two 7,200 RPM drives for the home directories, port collections, documentation and served data. Ideally I’d love to have another super fast drive just for /swap too!

On this laptop I’ve got everything under the sun on one drive. Perhaps partitioning the drive and assigning the /Users directory to a secondary partition might help to compartmentalise the information and improve performance. On BSD and Linux it’s trivial to assign the /home directory to a separate volume, on Mac OS X I’m not so sure. Seems like I have some homework ahead of me!

This much taken up, on a 149GiB internal notebook drive. Bummer!
This much taken up… on a 149GiB internal notebook drive.

Of course it probably wouldn’t hurt cleaning this drive out either. I have a few Ruby scripts which I run each afternoon which cleans up my desktop and puts files in the appropriate places, but it can’t determine what is safe to delete and what isn’t. I need an electronic secretary I think. Make someone sign a NDA, then go through my drive and get rid of things. No, wait… perhaps that isn’t such a good idea.

As my fabulous father always says after ringing me from his office in Singapore which has more paper, books, phone receivers, emails and blood pressure tablets than Parliament House: "All I need is a time machine Ruben… then I’d work just fine"