Well, that whole notion hit a speed bump with their newest line of MacBooks. The mid-range MacBook (as opposed to the MacBook Pro or the white base model) is missing a Firewire port. Firewire, or IEEE 1394, is a faster way to transfer data between computers or peripherals. USB 2.0 does perform most of the same functions at a slightly lower speed than Firewire 400. However, until about two years ago, nearly all consumer level camcorders were Firewire only, and not USB.

As this realization began to sink among consumers, outrage emerged across the blogosphere and among shoestring-budget creatives. For the family wanting to edit their home video, they would now have to decide whether to upgrade to the MacBook Pro, a $700 jump; downgrade to the white 13-inch Macbook, which has less drive space and less upgradability; or buy a new camcorder that has USB 2.0 connectivity, an extra couple hundred dollars out of pocket.

Admittedly, times do change, and technology with it, but this particular shift was neither smooth nor were consumers really prepped for the transition. It just happened, which left Apple fending off complaints left and right.

In the end, Apple CEO Steve Jobs just laid it out there: “Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2.” And some argue that the MacBook is not what should be used to edit video, mix down multi-track audio, and do other niche tasks usually performed by professionals. The MacBook is a consumer model laptop, and the MacBook Pro is just what it says it is: a professional model laptop meant to handle projects that utilize Firewire peripherals.

Understood. I just think consumers and creatives could have been given some advance notice. Better yet, people shouldn’t have to decide if they need to buy a new peripheral because their $1300 MacBook doesn’t support it. And yes, I get that it’s not a MacBook Pro, but I do have a POS Dell & HP laptop that both have firewire and even the cheaper white base model has it. Don’t get me wrong, I love Mac and is why I own a Mac Pro, but I just think everyone should have access to firewire speeds. Who knows, they might fix this and maybe they might start selling iMacs with non glossy super reflective screens again; I’d go buy one tomorrow if that were the case. Until then I’ll just have to be satisfied with my Mac Pro (very) and the new MacBook Pro I plan on buying in the near future (awesome).

Basically you have your typical browser window when you first open it up, but when you type a URL into the address field, an image of the site you’re looking for pops up in a smaller window in the center of the screen. As you open more windows, they arrange themselves in a sort of a 3D line up staggered on top of each other one after another from left to right on your screen as you click from one image to the next.

I came across SpaceTime a few months ago by accident, while you guessed it, randomly searching the internet. The free software is amazing in its attempt and seriously elegant but still has some bugs that need to be worked out before I would suggest this for public use. I wanted to take it for a test drive and see what was under the hood and I was pleasantly surprised of the capabilities that it possesses; after my brief spin around the block. However, as a pretty net savvy individual, I think regular browsing with SpaceTime lacks a bit in its execution. When you type a URL directly into the address field it opens a smaller window that you need to double click in order to get where you’re trying to go. Unless you are using the built in search features for Google, Flickr, YouTube, eBay, and more the browser lacks that normalcy you need for everyday browsing.

SpaceTime requires a fairly powerful configuration of your computer systems hardware–512MB of RAM, a 3D graphics card with 128MB of onboard memory, Pentium 4 2.4GHz or AMD 2400xp+, and a screen resolution of at least 1280 by 1024. I used the program on a desktop with 1GB of RAM and an nVidia GeForce 7600 with 256MB of RAM, and the application still gave me a decent amount of lag. The images of Web pages are somewhat fuzzy and take a decent amount of time to render if the internet connection isn’t tip top.

Overall I think this is a great step forward but needs some more work before I make it a permanent fixture in my internet arsenal. I believe it’ll be a driving force in the 3D browsing arena in the near future, so keep a look out. Till that happens it’s a great toy you can tinker with, but let’s face it I’m not giving up my Firefox.