“What today’s business people and entrepreneurs are quickly beginning to understand is that Apple’s iMacs (desktop computers) and MacBooks (notebook computers) can not only handle virtually every business application a PC can handle, but also provide a more stress-free computing experience,” Jason R. Rich reports for Entrepreneur.com.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple also offer Mac Pro towers and Mac mini for the desktop and MacBook Pro and MacBook Air as additional notebook options.
Rich continues, “Today’s Macs are more intuitive and stable than PCs running Windows Vista or XP, and they can even run Windows applications. Mac users also worry less while surfing the web, since the Mac OS X operating system is not susceptible to spyware or viruses… Apple also now offers a free service that will transfer all of your existing PC data to a new Mac when it’s purchased at an Apple Store. For an additional $100 a year, Apple will provide one-on-one training on any Mac to get new users up to speed on the differences between the Windows and the Mac OS X operating system.”
“Recent hardware upgrades now allow Macs to run Windows XP or Vista, meaning that if a Mac version of a popular business application isn’t yet available, the user can run the Widows version without experiencing slow processing speeds or other hassles,” Rich explains. “While Macs and PCs still operate differently, Apple and its software developers have overcome many data compatibility issues, meaning that data from a Mac can now be exchanged with a PC. Plus, Macs can be connected to office networks.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: While there are some inaccuracies and over-generalizations in the full article, it’s very good news for Apple and the Macintosh platform that articles like this are appearing in business publications.
@midlotv Apple has always had favorable pricing for educational institutions unlike camcorder companies and music shops. If you are going into these trades you should be using the proper tools to perfect your craft. A lower cost consumer note book is not it. Any school that is that cost conscious can get Mac Minis and use recycled CRT for monitors.
bobchr:
You are absolutely correct on the points that you make. And so is the other poster who thought my ‘commercial’ was a little far fetched….
BUT — this all hinges on what Apple does with the refresh of the mini and iMac (rumored).
If they remove FW from all the consumer/entry-level lines, then I think my commercial is more ‘valid’.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Thanks to everyone for their spirited responses!
Peace,
D
@oh no my shorts
Apple primary reason for existence is to turn a profit. As a shareholder you must appreciate this.
Their decision was not based on anything else then on the premiss that the MacBook and the MacBook Pro are already extremely similar as far as horsepower and feature sets.
The MacBook is more then capable computationally speaking to be used in a professional setting, completely obliterating the need for a MacBook Pro.
Any videographer or audio professional would be hard pressed not to consider the consumer level MacBook and saving a buck.
This has nothing to do with the installed base of peripherals. It has everything to do with not having overlapping products that would cannibalize the viable market of a more expensive product.
Sure, as a consumer, I am with you. It sucks, but as a shareholder, you ought to be happy Apple did this.
Wow all this complaint about firewire and throughput on a laptop – it is meant to be portable not to be tethered to a wire whether that is a firewire or USB the key is NO WIRES
Lets see here I want to buy a computer that will hook up to my old ancient Firewire camcorder – or for the same money buy a MacBook and a new AVCHD camcorder that runs with USB and SD memory for the same price? I think that I would like a new camera WooHoo
“If that 0.07% was a highly influential group of creative users that has historically evangelized Apple and has given them free publicity, placement and visibility for more than 20 years? In a heartbeat.”
That group already buys the MacBook Pro.
“Come on, it’s a $1 part.”
Or maybe it’s a few bucks by the time you count connectors etc.
Or in other terms, assuming say a million 13″ Macbooks sold a quarter, a few million dollars of profit a quarter gone, straight off the bottom line to keep 14k users happy. Apple would be better off to send them all a coupon to get a Pro at a MacBook price, or a free USB hard disk or Camcorder, Or an email pointing out that Apple still do a $999 Mac with FireWire.
“But it does not compare to FW at streaming speeds and sustained speeds.”
Actually it does, for most purposes it’s close enough and USB3 is much faster.
Q: What uploads video faster, a FireWire tape based camcorder or a USB based HDD camcorder?
A: The USB HDD based camcorder is much faster because it transfers a digital file rather than streams and captures video.
Q:Which results in less frame loss in the transfer process?
A: The USB based camcorder because it sends a digital file rather than re-capturing data being streamed from the camera.
Q: But don’t some crappy low end flash based cameras overcompress that data and lose it before they even store it?
A: So buy a better camera. The camera’s you’re talking about are not prosumer cameras.
Q: So which seems like a better architecture, one where the camera captures and stores the data and uploads what it stored with no further loss faster than real time, or one that streams the data out of the camera real time and loses some of it on re-capture even with FireWire?
A: You tell me.
Q: So there’s a technical reason that FireWire is going the way of the dodo? That it’s actually not superior once you start talking about Flash or HDD based cameras?
A: Yes.
Q: So why do people still think FireWire is a better choice?
A: They’re thinking about the old days.
“Also, because this also sticks it to the makers of these audio interfaces”
They’ll push Apple to fix their bugs with isochronous USB2 data transfers. The audio bandwidth requirement is tiny compared to the bandwidth of either USB2 or FireWire.
“But it does not compare to FW at streaming speeds and sustained speeds.
Actually it does, for most purposes it’s close enough and USB3 is much faster.”
Real Answer: No. In Real World Experience, FW beats the pants off USB, and USB3 is still vaporware.
“Q: What uploads video faster, a FireWire tape based camcorder or a USB based HDD camcorder?
A: The USB HDD based camcorder is much faster because it transfers a digital file rather than streams and captures video.’
Real Answer: This is an absurdly bogus comparison which is pointless because it is between different kinds of cameras and has nothing to do with FW vs. USB speeds.
“Q:Which results in less frame loss in the transfer process?
A: The USB based camcorder because it sends a digital file rather than re-capturing data being streamed from the camera.”
Real Answer: In Real World Comparisons of equivalent equipment, using FW results in few, if any, dropped frames. Unlike USB.
“Q: But don’t some crappy low end flash based cameras overcompress that data and lose it before they even store it?
A: So buy a better camera. The camera’s you’re talking about are not prosumer cameras.”
Real Answer: Yes, they do. The recommendation to buy a “better,” “prosumer,” camera is ridiculous in light of the fact that non-prosumer cameras are exactly the kind you’ve been talking about as being better. You know… those with USB and without FW.
“Q: So which seems like a better architecture, one where the camera captures and stores the data and uploads what it stored with no further loss faster than real time, or one that streams the data out of the camera real time and loses some of it on re-capture even with FireWire?
A: You tell me.”
Real Answer: Again, bogus comparisons.
“Q: So there’s a technical reason that FireWire is going the way of the dodo? That it’s actually not superior once you start talking about Flash or HDD based cameras?
A: Yes.”
Real Answer: No. Flash and HHD cameras would be even faster with FW than USB, because FireWire IS objectively, technically better than USB.
“Q: So why do people still think FireWire is a better choice?
A: They’re thinking about the old days.”
Real Answer: Nonsense because USB and FW are the same age, technology-wise. Both have been improved and updated since their original appearance, but FW is still faster and technologically superior.
“Also, because this also sticks it to the makers of these audio interfaces”
They’ll push Apple to fix their bugs with isochronous USB2 data transfers. The audio bandwidth requirement is tiny compared to the bandwidth of either USB2 or FireWire.”
Real World Answer: Sorry, but no. Apple didn’t develop USB. Any bugs will have to be worked out by those who did, and considering the niche market represented by the number of audio pros, it is highly unlikely Intel will bother.
” FW beats the pants off USB”
If by that you mean when compared with equivalent disk mechanisms comes in about a third faster, OK. I’m not sure that that qualifies as “beating the pants”.
“between different kinds of cameras and has nothing to do with FW vs. USB speeds.”
It goes directly to the USEFULNESS of a firewire port to achieve a goal and to the quality of the customer experience. Are you trying to say that FireWire is the best, fastest way to do something 10x slower then you can do it by adopting another technical approach?
“using FW results in few, if any, dropped frames. Unlike USB.”
But as you admit, it does drop some whereas you are wrong about cameras uploading via USB off digital media (as opposed to streaming off tape) They don’t drop any frames at all due to the transfer.
“non-prosumer cameras are exactly the kind you’ve been talking about as being better”
No, my comparison would cover higher end prosumer HDD units and professional HDD units too.
“Flash and HHD cameras would be even faster with FW than USB”
Yes, but camera vendors, having already achieved such a vast speedup by using USB to upload digital files instead of streaming video real time over FireWire probably can’t bothered burdening the cameras with a port not every PC has for an extra few percentage points gain in transfer speed that uploading digitally over FireWire might give.
“Apple didn’t develop USB. Any bugs will have to be worked out by those who did,”
But Apple did develop their drivers, and that’s where the bugs are, not in the spec itself.
“considering the niche market “
You said it right there. Which is why no-one in the mainstream is mourning the death of FireWire.
First, I’m not going to get into a point by point refutation. My initial reply was aimed at comments based on strawman arguments instead of honest comparisons.
Second, I have no idea what this “transferring vs. streaming” point is that you keep bring up. Unless you are saying that a HHD camera acts like an external drive when connected to a Mac and you can just select files on the camera’s drive and drag them to your Mac. Well, guess what? That can be done over a FW (iLink) connection also, and it will be much faster than USB. And there won’t be any dropped frames because it’s FW. If you’re losing frames, it’s probably because of video editing software.
Third, excepting low-end Flip-type, USB flash cameras, I have yet to see a single consumer (let alone “prosumer”) grade video camera that doesn’t also come with FW (iLink)… and usually a couple of other connectors as well as HDMI.
“Which is why no-one in the mainstream is mourning the death of FireWire.”
From a pro user standpoint, the “pro” mainstream most certainly will mourn FW. Excepting keyboards, mice, and a few low-powered devices, USB is considered a joke as a connector.
As for the “consumer” mainstream, well, as they say… ignorance is bliss.
windows wil always be better in gaming! A true gamer will always choose a windows-pc!