Why is it "correct" to treat Firewire 800 as a "pro" feature? Everybody can benefit from fast, reliable data transfers. Part of the reason Firewire 400 is successful, is that it appeals to a broad range of users - and is present on a wide variety of hardware, from entry-level to high-end.
Treating Firewire as a "pro" thing will only doom it to obscurity. Besides, the whole pro labeling is an artificial divide. Users don't fall neatly into categories like that.
Personally, I think computing would be a lot better if we brought the "high-end" down to the masses, rather than inflicting the low-end crap on everybody. The "pro divide" bites a lot of people, and they often aren't aware of it until they escape it. Many consumers think "oh, that's a pro thing, I don't need it" and then struggle with inferior solutions, thinking that "pro" means you need to be an expert to use it. When they try the "pro" solution they often find it makes life a lot easier. I don't think we should be artificially shutting people out of good things.
Why do they have to be "serious" photographers? And what's wrong with integrated graphics for photography work? It does just fine with Photoshop and 2D graphics. Gaming and 3D is the only area it would make a difference.
Or they could be using the machines differently - they might have a Mac Pro in the studio, and take a cheap Macbook with them for field capturing and logging - not for actual Photoshop work. You don't need a Macbook Pro to store and organize your images in the field.
Inferior? I prefer the Macbooks to the Macbook Pros, because the plastic is do much more rugged. Now, this has changed with the new "unibody" design, but the old Macbook Pros (and before them Powerbooks) were fragile compared to the cheap and cheerful Macbooks and iBooks.
Isn't the new fast version of USB just as fast as firewire?
Nope. USB 2.0 is much slower at sustained transfers. It's also unreliable for time-sensitive data, such as audio or video streams. There's also Firewire 800, which is twice the speed of standard firewire and USB 2.
I have no need to go out and replace my machines because there's a new model. But the problem is, what does this mean for the future? When I do need to replace my machine, will I be able to buy one with Firewire?
There's also the impact this has on Firewire ubiquity. Up until now, you could simply expect every Mac to have a Firewire port. Somebody asks me "how do I edit this video" I can say "Do you have a Mac? Yes? Fire up iMovie." Problem solved. Now my answer is "well, that depends..."
The ubiquity of Firewire on the Mac was one of the things keeping the standard alive. Now the future is uncertain.
Yeah, like you're going to take your Mac Pro with you to give or record a live performance. Why the hell would you need anything more than a low-end Macbook to do portable audio recording or performances? All it has to do is stream the data to disk. It's not like you need 8 processors to do that. All you need is firewire.
If that's the plan, then it's pretty stupid. It won't get people who were thinking about upgrading their old Macbook/iBook/Powerbook to buy a new Macbook Pro. It will just stop them from buying a new Macbook, while they continue to use their old machine.
There's also the size issue, especially for musicians. the larger size of the 15.4" MBP is a deterrent to those who want a compact machine to perform on stage with.
Actually, I just read the article you provided about Seagate, but that doesn't shed any light on the matter. It just says that Seagate settled on a (I would say frivilous) lawsuit. They didn't lose the lawsuit. It also provided no evidence for the oft-repeated claim that this nomenclature came from marketing departments. However, the comments on the story are much more illuminating:
There was no switch. HDDs were always labeled and sold using the correct decimal prefixes since the 1950s. I've double-checked my HDDs from the 1990s. They are labeled correctly (MB = 1,000,000 byte). They even explain the correct and universal meanings of kilo, mega and giga on their websites and the fine-print - something you should have learnt at school. The problem here is simply that convenient slang terms (jargon) creeped into business language. If you want to blame any marketing guys, blame those who sell memory-chips (RAM) labelling 268,4 MB incorrectly as 256 MB. Take this as a lesson that the geeky neighbour kid isn't always right.
Do you have any evidence that HD manufacturers suddenly changed their labeling, based on a decision from the marketing department? That just doesn't make a lot of sense, because if there was any marketing advantage, it would quickly backfire.
Instead, the more likely explanation is that hard drives are designed by engineers, who use their prefixes correctly.
The other strange thing is - why do people focus all their rage on hard drive manufacturers? Why is there not outrage toward the manufacturers of network equipment, who measure throughput decimally?
Which is a pretty pathetic excuse to abandon logic and consistency. And programmers could have thought up something better sounding in the early days, if they had the foresight to. Instead, they got lazy and thought "you know, 1024 is kind of like 1000, let's sloppily use that!"
It's all kind of weird for a field which relies on precise math, and is supposed to be innovative.
Megameter or megaliter might mean 10^6 units. But when used as a prefix to "byte", it was always 2^20 until marketing got their greasy fingers on it.
Regardless of whether marketers had anything to do with it or not, it's logically correct. And 20 years of tradition means nothing. Please see my other reply upthread for elaboration on that point.
Really, it was the fault of the programming community to let a colloquial jargon gain traction without examination or standardization. Is the developer community really so vain it must cling to this, rather than coming into line with the rest of the world?
That's just not true. In any computer context apart from "the number on the packaging for a HD", the usage of MB or Megabyte means 1024*1024 is much more than 50% of contexts
No, that's just not true. It only means *1024 in programming and memory chips. In everything else, it's decimal. Network speeds, data throughput, optical disc storage, etc.
until a few years ago when some people decided it'd be awesome to change over 35 years of usage).
35 years of tradition! OMG! You do realize that it has been used in the decimal sense in science for far longer than that, right? It's been used that way for longer than the field of computing has been in existence. Computing is very young, it's a bit early for "tradition."
We should actually change this colloquialism before it gets too entrenched. It makes programming look like a joke compared to the sciences and engineering.
Shouldn't computing strive to the ideals of science, and do things based on logic and precision? Science isn't afraid to challenge itself and overturn preconceptions. Why should computing cling to mistakes and perpetuate them, instead of trying to improve? I think it's ridiculous, that in such a new and disruptive field, people should be emotionally clinging to nostalgia.
Given that, most people will never see "mega" used outside of a computer related usage so to most people mega means 1024*1024..
That's absolute nonsense. It's encountered everywhere - megatons, megawatts, megaliters. And the "kilo" is seen even more often - kilometers, kilograms; most of the world uses those units every day in non-scientific settings.
But, hey, feel free to keep confusing people if it makes you feel superior.
No, it's proponents of the binary megabyte who are confusing people - because they are saying that they have to have a very special meaning for prefixes which mean something different in every other field on the planet. It's completely braindead, and only seems to be done out of a sense of nostalgia.
So, you can cite examples of bad proprietary software. I can cite examples of bad FOSS. It's not a strong argument.
Maybe I'm biased by my experience of software on the Mac platform, which has a thriving independent software scene, and offering generous trial periods is the norm. But I think others here are biased by their experience with Windows software, where shovelware and dodgy marketing is prevalent. For some reason Mac users do expect quality software, and a developer who releases crap generally won't make many sales. Where adware or malware is outed by the community pretty darn quick.
In any case generalizing about proprietary software based on the the most hideous of Windows shovelware is just not valid. I've had great experiences with proprietary software on the Mac, where developers often respond directly and personally to requests and problems, and constantly strive to improve their products.
Why would it matter if it were an SI unit or not? "Mega", in its modern usage is based on the decimal system. So, why would you use it for a binary unit?
Everybody else in the scientific and engineering world uses "mega" as a decimal unit. It means exactly one million - not approximately one million. Whoever thought of this abuse is an idiot - why didn't they make their own jargon for binary multipliers, rather than something with a specific existing meaning?
Here you're ignoring the argument of my post, which is that you can tell whether it's good becauese you can install it for free, and test it as much as you like.
If that's your argument, then it's really weak. Why didn't you even bother to address the fact that much closed-source software (probably most) come with trials, demos, or free versions?
You argument appears to be based on a lie. Yes, I can install and test proprietary software before I commit to buy. If the software is crap, I won't buy it. Don't you think that potential sales are a good incentive for companies to write non-crap proprietary software?
Slashdot Mirror
Everything offends someone.
I'm offended by that.
Isn't "being offended" contradictory to the tenets of Buddhism? ... I know, I know, all religions are hypocritical, but still.
And may the bolognese be with you, Noodly One.
Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?
I know quite a few gay muslims, and they aren't the self-hating kind, either.
Perhaps he just enjoys the fact that they help people with heart conditions?
Did somebody say something about a free moustache ride in plaid?
Why is it "correct" to treat Firewire 800 as a "pro" feature? Everybody can benefit from fast, reliable data transfers. Part of the reason Firewire 400 is successful, is that it appeals to a broad range of users - and is present on a wide variety of hardware, from entry-level to high-end.
Treating Firewire as a "pro" thing will only doom it to obscurity. Besides, the whole pro labeling is an artificial divide. Users don't fall neatly into categories like that.
Personally, I think computing would be a lot better if we brought the "high-end" down to the masses, rather than inflicting the low-end crap on everybody. The "pro divide" bites a lot of people, and they often aren't aware of it until they escape it. Many consumers think "oh, that's a pro thing, I don't need it" and then struggle with inferior solutions, thinking that "pro" means you need to be an expert to use it. When they try the "pro" solution they often find it makes life a lot easier. I don't think we should be artificially shutting people out of good things.
If people didn't buy Macs, we would never have had the choice of Firewire to begin with.
Why do they have to be "serious" photographers? And what's wrong with integrated graphics for photography work? It does just fine with Photoshop and 2D graphics. Gaming and 3D is the only area it would make a difference.
Or they could be using the machines differently - they might have a Mac Pro in the studio, and take a cheap Macbook with them for field capturing and logging - not for actual Photoshop work. You don't need a Macbook Pro to store and organize your images in the field.
Where are you going to put that card on a Macbook?
Inferior? I prefer the Macbooks to the Macbook Pros, because the plastic is do much more rugged. Now, this has changed with the new "unibody" design, but the old Macbook Pros (and before them Powerbooks) were fragile compared to the cheap and cheerful Macbooks and iBooks.
Isn't the new fast version of USB just as fast as firewire?
Nope. USB 2.0 is much slower at sustained transfers. It's also unreliable for time-sensitive data, such as audio or video streams. There's also Firewire 800, which is twice the speed of standard firewire and USB 2.
I have no need to go out and replace my machines because there's a new model. But the problem is, what does this mean for the future? When I do need to replace my machine, will I be able to buy one with Firewire?
There's also the impact this has on Firewire ubiquity. Up until now, you could simply expect every Mac to have a Firewire port. Somebody asks me "how do I edit this video" I can say "Do you have a Mac? Yes? Fire up iMovie." Problem solved. Now my answer is "well, that depends..."
The ubiquity of Firewire on the Mac was one of the things keeping the standard alive. Now the future is uncertain.
Yeah, like you're going to take your Mac Pro with you to give or record a live performance. Why the hell would you need anything more than a low-end Macbook to do portable audio recording or performances? All it has to do is stream the data to disk. It's not like you need 8 processors to do that. All you need is firewire.
If that's the plan, then it's pretty stupid. It won't get people who were thinking about upgrading their old Macbook/iBook/Powerbook to buy a new Macbook Pro. It will just stop them from buying a new Macbook, while they continue to use their old machine.
There's also the size issue, especially for musicians. the larger size of the 15.4" MBP is a deterrent to those who want a compact machine to perform on stage with.
It's flamebait, because it lies about Firewire being proprietary. Why else would you say that, if not looking to stir up negative responses?
Uhhh... Firewire is not proprietary. It's an industry standard.
Actually, I just read the article you provided about Seagate, but that doesn't shed any light on the matter. It just says that Seagate settled on a (I would say frivilous) lawsuit. They didn't lose the lawsuit. It also provided no evidence for the oft-repeated claim that this nomenclature came from marketing departments. However, the comments on the story are much more illuminating:
There was no switch. HDDs were always labeled and sold using the correct decimal prefixes since the 1950s. I've double-checked my HDDs from the 1990s. They are labeled correctly (MB = 1,000,000 byte). They even explain the correct and universal meanings of kilo, mega and giga on their websites and the fine-print - something you should have learnt at school. The problem here is simply that convenient slang terms (jargon) creeped into business language. If you want to blame any marketing guys, blame those who sell memory-chips (RAM) labelling 268,4 MB incorrectly as 256 MB. Take this as a lesson that the geeky neighbour kid isn't always right.
Do you have any evidence that HD manufacturers suddenly changed their labeling, based on a decision from the marketing department? That just doesn't make a lot of sense, because if there was any marketing advantage, it would quickly backfire.
Instead, the more likely explanation is that hard drives are designed by engineers, who use their prefixes correctly.
The other strange thing is - why do people focus all their rage on hard drive manufacturers? Why is there not outrage toward the manufacturers of network equipment, who measure throughput decimally?
Which is a pretty pathetic excuse to abandon logic and consistency. And programmers could have thought up something better sounding in the early days, if they had the foresight to. Instead, they got lazy and thought "you know, 1024 is kind of like 1000, let's sloppily use that!"
It's all kind of weird for a field which relies on precise math, and is supposed to be innovative.
Megameter or megaliter might mean 10^6 units. But when used as a prefix to "byte", it was always 2^20 until marketing got their greasy fingers on it.
Regardless of whether marketers had anything to do with it or not, it's logically correct. And 20 years of tradition means nothing. Please see my other reply upthread for elaboration on that point.
Really, it was the fault of the programming community to let a colloquial jargon gain traction without examination or standardization. Is the developer community really so vain it must cling to this, rather than coming into line with the rest of the world?
That's just not true. In any computer context apart from "the number on the packaging for a HD", the usage of MB or Megabyte means 1024*1024 is much more than 50% of contexts
No, that's just not true. It only means *1024 in programming and memory chips. In everything else, it's decimal. Network speeds, data throughput, optical disc storage, etc.
until a few years ago when some people decided it'd be awesome to change over 35 years of usage).
35 years of tradition! OMG! You do realize that it has been used in the decimal sense in science for far longer than that, right? It's been used that way for longer than the field of computing has been in existence. Computing is very young, it's a bit early for "tradition."
We should actually change this colloquialism before it gets too entrenched. It makes programming look like a joke compared to the sciences and engineering.
Shouldn't computing strive to the ideals of science, and do things based on logic and precision? Science isn't afraid to challenge itself and overturn preconceptions. Why should computing cling to mistakes and perpetuate them, instead of trying to improve? I think it's ridiculous, that in such a new and disruptive field, people should be emotionally clinging to nostalgia.
Given that, most people will never see "mega" used outside of a computer related usage so to most people mega means 1024*1024 ..
That's absolute nonsense. It's encountered everywhere - megatons, megawatts, megaliters. And the "kilo" is seen even more often - kilometers, kilograms; most of the world uses those units every day in non-scientific settings.
But, hey, feel free to keep confusing people if it makes you feel superior.
No, it's proponents of the binary megabyte who are confusing people - because they are saying that they have to have a very special meaning for prefixes which mean something different in every other field on the planet. It's completely braindead, and only seems to be done out of a sense of nostalgia.
So, you can cite examples of bad proprietary software. I can cite examples of bad FOSS. It's not a strong argument.
Maybe I'm biased by my experience of software on the Mac platform, which has a thriving independent software scene, and offering generous trial periods is the norm. But I think others here are biased by their experience with Windows software, where shovelware and dodgy marketing is prevalent. For some reason Mac users do expect quality software, and a developer who releases crap generally won't make many sales. Where adware or malware is outed by the community pretty darn quick.
In any case generalizing about proprietary software based on the the most hideous of Windows shovelware is just not valid. I've had great experiences with proprietary software on the Mac, where developers often respond directly and personally to requests and problems, and constantly strive to improve their products.
Why would it matter if it were an SI unit or not? "Mega", in its modern usage is based on the decimal system. So, why would you use it for a binary unit?
Everybody else in the scientific and engineering world uses "mega" as a decimal unit. It means exactly one million - not approximately one million. Whoever thought of this abuse is an idiot - why didn't they make their own jargon for binary multipliers, rather than something with a specific existing meaning?
Here you're ignoring the argument of my post, which is that you can tell whether it's good becauese you can install it for free, and test it as much as you like.
If that's your argument, then it's really weak. Why didn't you even bother to address the fact that much closed-source software (probably most) come with trials, demos, or free versions?
You argument appears to be based on a lie. Yes, I can install and test proprietary software before I commit to buy. If the software is crap, I won't buy it. Don't you think that potential sales are a good incentive for companies to write non-crap proprietary software?
They're now marketing tools, similar to a megabyte being 1,000,000 bytes
That's not a marketing tool. The prefix "mega" means 1,000,000 - therefore, a megabyte is 1 million bytes. It's just logic and correct use of units.