Originally Posted by Avon B7
No I just said that as a technology, nothing out there tops it (even though eSATA for example, may be faster)
I would have agreed ten years ago, but not today.
Computers. Most of the ones I see (PCs included). Peripherals. Within two metres of where I am now I have a firewire printer, scanner, three external hard drives, a small RAID unit and two external DVD writers.
I don't think you understood the question. This was the dialog, starting with your statement, and then my question:
I must be getting ahead of myself. I don't know why but I thought power over ethernet already existed.
How many computers or peripherals have you seen with it?
Are you saying that all of your computers and devices have Power Over Ethernet?
You answered a question about that, with a statement about FW.
No. If I plan on using external devices for more than a short period of time I would be using a mains connection for the laptop. If there were no mains connection I would use an extra battery. Either way, having bus power means less bricks.
Heh! Your statement coincides with mine, though you don't realize it.
Same number of bricks.
Could you please expand on this and give some technical reasons as, AFAIW, bus timing is handled in the chipset where peripheral manufacturers can largely forget about that kind of thing.
You don't really want technical reason, do you? There are multi page papers that would do that. This isn't the place for that. If you don't know that adding a cpu to a device allows the software, in firmware to do this, then you won't understand the more technical explanations.
Can you provide documentary evidence of this or a comment from an engineer somewhere that back that statement up.
I'll provide a few links to more current problems with compatibility problems here and there. Finding 15 year old articles isn't easy.
One problem has always been the poor physical layer specs. Some of these problems show that.http://www.rme-audio.com/english/tec...fw800alert.htm
Read down to the last two sections to see what I'm talking about with command structures and such (meaning protocols). Too much was left in the various manufacturers hands. It took years until many finally agreed on what to do.http://www.synthetic-ap.com/products...eosupport.html
This is an interesting thread to read. It shows some of the FW problems we experienced on our Macs.http://discussions.apple.com/thread....6860&tstart=12
Check the very bottom of this page.http://eshop.macsales.com/Descriptio...softraid3.html
These problems were not supposed to happen at all, we were assured, but they did.https://rainrecording.co.uk/support/article?id=109
Again, this is not supposed to happen, but the lax standards do allow it.
While I can't find early technical articles now, there are enough articles in Google about FW compatibility problems to show it's real.
I was around then and using firewire but you are falling into the same trap again. Native FW on hard drive was important for computer users (of course with hard disks). FW caters to far more than hard disks.
no trap. just a fact. There are over 300 million computers sold a year now, and that number is continually goig up. If FW drives appeared, and were sucessful, most of those computers would now have FW bisses.
Because it failed, they don't. Putting in FW is not worth it for most companies, so they don't. It's limited the use of FW severely, and has lead to the current situation.
Do you really think that if FW dries were here, and FW was at 3,200, Apple would have removed the ports?
When USB camcorders appeared it was for still photography transfer. When USB started to handle video transfer it required special drivers from the manufacturer. Then, if I'm not mistaken, USB was updated to handle video transfer. I'm speaking from memory and have never used a USB camcorder though.
It doesn't matter what the original reason was. What does matter is what it's evolved to. Tape will be obsolete shortly in camcorders. In tapeless camcorders, FW serves no purpose. Indeed, it's a waste of time.
It's most definitely not incorrect or irrelevant. If your A/V devices are not storing content locally I deduce that you now agree with me on the streaming point I raised. And you are incorrect. From a technology perspective a guarantee of content delivery on time is an absolute number one priority in the situations I have put forward. You cannot say 'I have enough speed and bandwidth so things should work'. This stuff cannot be left to chance. Sooner or later your network is going to get congested.
I'm not saying that streaming isn't done on networks, just that your idea of it is irrelevant. I'm not the only one here to point out that FW isn't needed for that.
FW gets just as conjected as dows any other network. I dn't understand your insistance that it won't. FW was NOT designed for network use. It is inferior for that use. Attempts have been made to use it that way for several years. I even have some of the software and devices that were being tested for that purpose. But it wasn't a good idea. It's expensive, as FW was never intended for stretches of more than 15 feet per cable without repeaters, and other hardware.
The networking protocols are not part of the standards, and have been written by several companies in non compatible ways. None have succeeded in becoming used.
Can you point to any successful FW networking companies? I can't. Only a couple that have played around with it.
Ethernet, and other networking systems don't leave moving files around the network to chance. I can't imagine why you would think they do.