2011 MBP - why is the optical port faster than the hard drive port?

In looking at an earlier discussion (April I think) I found a screen grab that showed a 15" MBP with a 6.0Gbp/s hard drive connection and a 3.0Gbp/s optical bay connection. That is image number one below.
Images two and three are from my brand new MBP 17". Can someone please explain the Link Speed and Negotiated Link Speed differnces? What is the 1.5 Gbp/s about?
I would appreciate any input guys.
Thanks!
Hugh

Why did Apple change this?
9-pin FireWire ports use FireWire 800, which is faster than the old 6-pin FireWire 400 ports.
Is there an adapter I can buy so that I can backup my Macbook?
Yes.
(48784)

Similar Messages

  • Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

    Hi,
        Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

    The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display.  The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2.  Whether it's important to you, only you can know.  To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad.  For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

  • Muvo TX FM: is the 256mb slightly faster than the 512mb when switching modes?(and starting u

    I was just wondering if the muvo tx fm 52 is slightly slower than the muvo tx fm 256 when switching modes ?
    because i have the 52 and my dad has the 256 and i noticed there's a difference
    both of them have the lastest firmware on them .5.0
    both of them are reasonably full / capcaity close to full
    when i switch from radio mode to music in folders mode : the transition between the two modes are smooth and immediate on the 256
    but when i do this on my 52 : i seem to have to an extra second of waiting time before it goes back into music mode
    yeah i know it's a bit nitpicky to bring such a thing up , but i thought it was strange that there would be a difference , since they're both the same model and firmware ( only a difference in capacity between the 2 )
    this occurance didn't start to happen until i upgraded it recently to .5.0 ( when this occurance starting appearing )
    or maybe it's just my 52 that does this ?
    anyway another thing that's strange that i've tested :
    if i do switch back to an older firmware version for my 52mb : this extra delay between switching modes is non-existant / goes away
    ( it was non-existant before i upgraded to the new firmware )
    also another thing i've noticed is the 256 seems to be faster at starting up after turning on too
    when i first turn it on , only takes till the /4 of the sand in the egg timer icon and drained to the bottom before it starts playing music
    with the 52 , it doesn't start playing music until all the sand in egg timer icon has drained to the bottom ( a second longer wait before the music starts playing )
    also another thing to note is that
    the firmware that came with the 256 , was .5.0 ( bought in april )
    i bought the 256 a couple of months ago
    with my 52 , which i had since december : i've used firmware old firmware that came with that ( i think .0.04 ) ( until switching to the newest firmware recently )
    i was just wondering what's calling this extra seconds worth of delay in my 52 , that's not present in the 256 ?Message Edited by low-quality on 07-04-2005 0:43 PMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 04:08 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:37 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:38 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:38 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:38 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:39 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:39 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:39 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:40 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:40 AMMessage Edited by low-quality on 07-05-2005 05:42 AM

    Sounds like it could be because of the capacity difference, maybe a mod could confirm this.

  • I have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

    i have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

    It is the OS. have you ever heard of UNIX? If you installed linux on your mac it work run just at fast... windows is very resource intensive. Also apple make sure the drivers are correct and run properly while windows could care less. Someone else can give you more reasons.

  • Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

    I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
    The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
    These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
    So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
    If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
    Rob

    That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
    - in the router backplane
    - in the 802.11n protocol
    - in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
    Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
    regards
    Rob

  • The 15-inch unibody is faster than the 17-inch unibody flagship?

    Macworld benchmarks has the 15 edging out the 17.
    And that is Before yesterday's speedbump for the 15.
    http://www.macworld.com/article/139139/2009/03/unibody17_inch_macbookpro.html
    When they remeasure, will the 15 be substantially faster than the 17-inch flagship?

    Historically, the 17-inch has been faster and better in many ways.
    I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect. I will present for you the following specifications from every MBP revision. All specifications represent the high-end 15" and stock 17" of the time which are the two models we are comparing here.
    MacBook Pro (Early 2006, Original Revision)
    15.4"/2.16 Ghz (CTO)/1 GB RAM/100GB/256 MB VRAM/$2499
    17"/2.16 Ghz/1 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
    Macbook Pro (Late 2006)
    15.4"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
    17"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
    Macbook Pro (Mid 2007)
    15.4"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
    17"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
    Macbook Pro (Early 2008)
    15.4"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2499
    17"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2799
    I think it is pretty evident that in terms of clockspeed, RAM, and VRAM the 15" and 17" have never been too far apart. I don't think 20-40GB of HD space is all that big a deal. Yes, the 17" has had an extra USB/FW port. I don't know if these things qualify as "faster and better in many ways" though. Really, the most significant way that the 17" was "better" was the screen size and resolution as has already been mentioned. Things are no different now than they've been for the last three years. I don't know what they were like in the PPC days because I don't have time to look back that far, but I don't think it matters.
    In fact it's slower, and will seem even slower with the 15's speed bump.
    It's not slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest notebooks that you can buy at all right now. We have already pointed out that you shouldn't take the benchmarks seriously because they have absolutely no statistical significance.
    These things are not going to change. If you need the notebook now, you should buy it. If you don't need it, then wait. If you don't want it, then buy something else.
    --Travis

  • Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

    I noticed that slideshow exports in AP3 seemed to take a long time and did a test with iMoive 09. I exported the exact same slideshow of 60 pictures and 1 song from both iMoive and AP3. The iMovie export was 5 times faster than the AP3 export.
    Why is this and can anything be done to speedup AP3 slideshow exports?
    I have a fairly quick Mac, 2 x 2.26 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 16 meg of ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870.
    Any thoughts?
    Ken

    You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
    I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
    Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

  • Why would oracle 9i drivers faster than oracle 10g drivers against a 10g?

    I'm skeptical of the claim but we have a system at work and tests have been done that apparently is showing that the older oracle 9i thin jdbc driver is performing a fetch faster than the 10g driver. This for a query that is currently doing a full table scan.
    Is there a default setting in 10g vs 9i that can explain why the perceived query performance is faster with the older thin driver?

    steffi2 wrote:
    What was observed was that when they started using the old Oracle 8.1.7 8i client jar against this 10g data the actual execution plan changed dramatically to use indexes where was previously it was not doing so and it was doing a full tablescan.
    Why would the introduction of the old 8i jar have this affect?Maybe the test is flawed. For example one test was run with the network was loaded while the other wasn't. Or different connection parameters.
    That said I believe somewhere the claim has been made that Oracle drivers changed from one API to another somewhat recently. Thus that could be the source.
    Or maybe something to do with hints.

  • Will the new 2012 iMac support 2 hard drives (HDD and SSD) like the 2011 iMac?

    Will the new 2012 iMac support 2 hard drives (HDD and SSD) like the 2011 iMac?

    Well, I'm not sure how anything can fit into a 5 mm depth, so I can see why they've removed the CD drive -  there probably wouldn't be enough room for the laser, LOL. Can't imagine speakers, hard drive (of any flavor), logic board and so on and so forth. Fortunately, my iMac has Applecare through early 2015 so I'm set for a while; I may check out a Mini at that point - saw that it is configurable with a fusion drive, which would make it interesting for me.

  • Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

    Hi! Why is the version file smaller than the original file, although I didn't make changes in the file? And why is the keywords don't exporting with original files?

    Wild guess: you're using the the wrong export settings. You'll need to tell us more before we can help you - like the export settings you're usng, the size and format of the originals etc.

  • Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

    My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

    Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
    If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
    Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
    You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

  • I am not able to transfer emails from outlook 2007 in Windows 8 to outlook 2011 in Mac.  I export .pst file to my hard drive from win 8 and then import in outlook 11 in mac, the folders including subfolders are created but there are hardly one email

    i am not able to transfer emails from outlook 2007 in Windows 8 to outlook 2011 in Mac.  I export .pst file to my hard drive from win 8 and then import in outlook 11 in mac, the folders including subfolders are created but there are hardly one email.  Please help

    Post your question in the MS Mac forums since it's their software you're having issues with:
    http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/mac

  • Problem in starting rmid in a port different than the default one

    hi all,
    i am experiencing exceptions in running rmid in a port different than a default one.
    if i run
    rmiregistry 2000
    rmid -J-Djava.security.policy=policy
    java -Djava.security.policy=policy -Djava.rmi.server.codebase=<mypath> -classpath <myclasspath> com.myclass.ActivatableRMI <host:port>
    everything works fine
    but if i try to specify a port in which rmid should be started, then i have exceptions...
    can anyone tell me how to solve my problem? i am running NT 4.0
    thanx and regards
         marco

    If you start rmid at port other than the default one
    (1098) with -port option, it is necessary to set the
    system property "java.rmi.activation.port" to this
    port.
    Rmid internally starts a local registry service
    (LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port)) and binds the
    RMI activation system server object with this registry
    service like Naming.rebind("//:" + port +
    "/java.rmi.activation.ActivationSystem",
    activationSystem);. Activation system provides a means
    for registering groups and "activatable" objects to be
    activated within those groups. When a activatable
    server object is exported, it is registered with this
    activation system, so it should get the stub to the
    activation system which is started as part of rmid.
    ActivationGroup class provides a static function
    getSystem() to get the reference to the activation
    system stub. Now it makes use of the system property
    "java.rmi.activation.port" value to contact the
    registry service where activation system registered
    itself under the name "//:" + value of
    java.rmi.activation.port +
    "/java.rmi.activation.ActivationSystem". If this
    property is not set, it uses the default port 1098.
    -- Srinath MandalapuThis is an awesome and lovely forum answer (and I saw srinath_babu reply to another similarly in my search), but I would like to ask for just a bit of clarification.
    My question is simply making sure I understand the reply above in my own terms...
    Suppose that right now my program involving activatables is already working with default port 1098, but that I wanted or needed to change to another port for rmid. Then is this statement true?
    - IF the commandline which which I start rmid specifies port xyxyx,
    - AND IF I added -Djava.rmi.activation.port=xyxyx to the commandline with which I run the setup for my Activatable (i.e. the program that calls Activatable.register method),
    - THEN my code will still work as is (i.e. I wouldn't have to change my existing code to specify the port anywhere in it)?
    (If I am not understanding this correctly, please let me know!)
    Thanks very much,
    /Mel

  • When I click on a website in my reading list, why does top sites open rather than the site I've clicked on?

    When I click on a website in my Reader list in Safari, why does Top Sites open rather than the website I've clicked on?

    Go step by step and test.
    Reset Safari.
    Click Safari in the menu bar.
    From the drop down select "Reset Safari".
    Click "Reset".
    Delete Cookies
    Safari > Preferences > Privacy > Cookies and other website data:
    Click “Remove All Website Data”.
    Empty Caches
    Safari > Preference > Advanced
    Checkmark the box for "Show Develop menu in menu bar".
    Develop menu will appear in the Safari menu bar.
    Click Develop and select "Empty Caches" from the dropdown.
    Turn off Extensions if any, and launch Safari.
    Safari > Preferences > Extensions

  • Is the Core i7 processor comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo from 2009?

    I am looking to get a new MacBook Air, but when looking at the prices I am seeing the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price and a lot more guts (RAM and Processor).  I am ok with spending the amount of money on the air if it means I get a computer that is like my iPad, which i love (flash based, snappy), but don't want it to be super slow.
    I am coming off of a 17" 2.8Ghz MacBook Pro from 2009.  I was happy with the speed and power of that machine.  The most taxing thing I did was make a complilation of family movies in iMovie and burned them with iDVD once in the 2 years of ownership. 
    I mostly browse the internet and compose written documents, and keynote presentations.
    I know my questions may seem stupid, but I don't know how significant the changes between i7 and Core 2 Duo are, so I ask the question:
    I am wondering if the processing power in the core i7 will be somewhat comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo I had in my 2009 computer?
    Thanks for any help!!

    Hi brosephb,
    Like you I went through a similar comparison process. I bought the MacBook air 13" and up specced the processor and memory. I don't do anything taxing enough or frequently enough to NEED the extra power of the MacBook pro.
    I am overjoyed at my air. It's gorgeous, the way it wakes instantly, it's speed and it's portableness is so endearing that I just don't use my iPad anymore. I read numerous reviews on it and the overwhelming opinion was it's addictive ease of use because of it's slim, light and rapid waking. At work I can hold the air with one hand, open it rapidly at will. It's just great but it's made my iPad redundant (for me anyway).
    I see the new airs are even faster and I'm tempted to consider selling my 6 month old air and getting the new one, but, it runs a dream so I am happy to just be envious of the new one.
    In short, unless you need the power (for your work) go for the air. I'm looking at a new iMac to use as a home work station. For the price of a new air I can get an iMac that will swallow any task for a good few years to come. And my air will suffice as my mobile companion. However, that's just me spoiling myself as, at the moment, I have no teal need for another mac. I may get the cinema display for any long winded tasks, as the screen size will help with multiple tasking.
    A bit of a ramble, hope this is useful.

Maybe you are looking for