moved: FireWire 2

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
When?



[ 01-07-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    next pm rev
  • Reply 2 of 45
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    what about the rest of the line?



    there is no reason why this shouldnt have been released a bunch of revisions ago if it is ready to go
  • Reply 3 of 45
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by Paul:

    <strong>what about the rest of the line?



    there is no reason why this shouldnt have been released a bunch of revisions ago if it is ready to go</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It wasn't ready to go a bunch of revisions ago.
  • Reply 4 of 45
    robbyrobby Posts: 108member
    maybe next imac rev. you know they can bost about the whole "digital hub thing"
  • Reply 5 of 45
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I just don't see what is taking so long. They bought that FireWire company in the beginning of the year. USB 2 is making inroads. Personally I don't see why EVERYTHING doesn't use USB. Like my digital camera for example. Imagine being able to transfer pics from camera to camera. That's right, no computer in the middle. Oh but wait USB can't do that, FireWire can. Apple needs to AGRESSIVELY market FireWire. There is NO reason for USB in anything outside keyboards, mice, and a few other puny things. The ability to function without a computer in the middle makes FireWire so much better.



    SO whither FireWire 2? I hope we don't have to wait until MWNY. FireWire 2 would be nice at MWSF and probably convince a few people waiting for the G5 to buy NOW. Like me.
  • Reply 6 of 45
    ummm, does a keyboard/mouse /really/ need 480 mbps of bandwidth?



    personally, i see FW as being great for high end video and external drives. it is also great for scanners (i shudder at the thought of a 300 dpi scan over usb1).



    usb 2 should be more for audio, printers, scanners, kb&m.

    the thing is, while firewire is superior, the only thing that used to limit usb was bandwidth and now that has been fixed. and of course, since usb 1 got pushed so heavily, usb 2 is readily accepted by consumers as the best option. walk into an electronics store and tell me how many FW drives/etc. you see. at least at best buy, there is 1 drive that works w/ FW, and that also has a usb 2 plug. Tech-wise, apple has been where usb just got to or is still trying to go, but marketing always seems to determine the winner.
  • Reply 7 of 45
    Yeah, I think it would be great if Apple tried to get more manufacturers to make it a proprietary connection, just as USB is becoming quite quickly. What happened to the whole idea about FireWire becoming the standard for connecting home entertainment equipment? It would be a bonanza for them -- imagine having to buy nothing but FireWire patch cables to run between all your components -- no optical, RCA, etc., etc., just FireWire running between them as a link. Maybe this *has* come about, and I'm just completely out of it. But I don't think it really has --- the basic consumer seeking a simple home entertainment sol'n would leap on it. FireWire has made its way to some professional Nikon digital SLRs, though -- which is wonderful. Even though most use CF card readers, being able to perhaps quickly sync up with FireWire to a portable computer or hard drive is extremely useful.
  • Reply 8 of 45
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    [quote] ummm, does a keyboard/mouse /really/ need 480 mbps of bandwidth? <hr></blockquote>



    I said except for input devices. But FireWire would help even here, since USB uses CPU, FireWire doesn't. Once I unplugged my friend's keyboard from his iMac in OS 9.1 and it crashed and he lost a paper. Remember it's a buggy Intel technology with lots of issues and it uses CPU. FireWire is superior in every way except one: cost. Which brings me to my next point. The economy of scale. If more things use FireWire it'll get cheaper. The more things use it the better for Apple which is better for us. USB 2 is already making inroads, time is of the essence. If not in market share than mindshare. FireWire as a "brand" needs to be pushed in public image. People should ask "does this PC have FireWire?"
  • Reply 9 of 45
    quickquick Posts: 227member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:<strong>

    People should ask "does this PC have FireWire?"</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And the sales-person will answer: "No, I'm sorry. This PC only connects via USB and iLink."



    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatic:

    <strong>FireWire as a "brand" needs to be pushed in public image.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ...



    [ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 45
    USB2 doesn't support isochronous (sp?) transfer (needed for video) and is "host-based",
  • Reply 11 of 45
    "usb 2 should be more for audio, printers, scanners, kb&m."

    Are you serious? Usb 2 for audio ? No thanks! Firewire is superior when it comes to audio since it produces less jitter than usb it also has better "timing". I have not heard any devices that uses usb 2 but I have listen to quite a few usb (1) and firewire and I could tell you that the diffrence in sound quality are big not huge but detectable. It does really matter !!!



    Don´t ask me why... but that is my experience, so ... please No thanks.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Firewire is the superior technology but now that USB2.0 is here and cheap to implement it ought to be on macs right beside firewire. Scanners, digital still cameras and hosts of more affordable external drives/MP3 players use USB2. Intel has succeeded whether you care to admitt it or not, the only question that remains is how long Apple will continue to punish mac users for their loyalty.
  • Reply 13 of 45
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Firewire is the superior technology but now that USB2.0 is here and cheap to implement it ought to be on macs right beside firewire. Scanners, digital still cameras and hosts of more affordable external drives/MP3 players use USB2. Intel has succeeded whether you care to admitt it or not, the only question that remains is how long Apple will continue to punish mac users for their loyalty.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's not exactly punishment. You aren't forbidden from buying a USB 2.0 based device since it works perfectly fine with a USB 1.1 port. Since there is basically no real benefit to having USB 2.0 in addition FireWire other than the availability of a few storage drives, this is not a big deal.
  • Reply 14 of 45
    [quote]It's not exactly punishment. You aren't forbidden from buying a USB 2.0 based device since it works perfectly fine with a USB 1.1 port.<hr></blockquote>



    Oh, I don't know. I think waiting for a couple of gigabytes of data to be transfered across a USB 1.1 link qualifies as punishment.



    [quote]Since there is basically no real benefit to having USB 2.0 in addition FireWire other than the availability of a few storage drives, this is not a big deal.<hr></blockquote>



    It IS a big deal. Look at things from the peripheral manufacturer's perspective-- updating devices like scanners & printers from USB 1.1 to 2 is a no-brainer. It doesn't require them to update their drivers. They don't even have to redesign cases, since USB 1.1 & 2 use the same connectors.



    More and more scanners & printers are being released with USB2. It would be foolish of Apple to ignore the direction the industry is taking, and it's obviously towards USB2; and USB1.1 compatibility is not a consolation prize. Only being able to use peripherals at 1/5 to 1/2 (or slower) of their top speed sucks...
  • Reply 15 of 45
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    "Intel makes most of it's profits from processor sales. They're pushing USB because it requires processor cycles to move data, and people will buy a new processor when things get too slow. Think of USB as a convenient way to use up Pentium cycles and get people to upgrade. Clever marketing compared with Apple's naive boy scout crusade to make thing's easier and better.



    Firewire supports peer-peer modes, and Intel doesn't like that notion one (ahem) bit. The idea that a device can bypass an Intel processor and accomplish anything useful is abhorrent to them. As usual, M$ will play both sides to see who will give them the best deal, and with 95% of the OS market, they know they're the ones who will decide the winner. Apple wants a patent royalty for every firewire port? Intel is demanding a license fee? Screw that - by the time Ballmer and the boys get through with them, Apple and Intel will be paying M$."
  • Reply 16 of 45
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    I imagine that Apple will offer FireWire 2 PCI cards when Final Cut Pro 4 is previewed/introduced or the next (last?) Power Mac G4 speed-bump.



    Then to be standard on the Power Mac G5 (whatever it ends up being called).



    Barto
  • Reply 17 of 45
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:

    <strong>

    Oh, I don't know. I think waiting for a couple of gigabytes of data to be transfered across a USB 1.1 link qualifies as punishment.



    It IS a big deal. Look at things from the peripheral manufacturer's perspective-- updating devices like scanners & printers from USB 1.1 to 2 is a no-brainer. It doesn't require them to update their drivers. They don't even have to redesign cases, since USB 1.1 & 2 use the same connectors.



    More and more scanners & printers are being released with USB2. It would be foolish of Apple to ignore the direction the industry is taking, and it's obviously towards USB2; and USB1.1 compatibility is not a consolation prize. Only being able to use peripherals at 1/5 to 1/2 (or slower) of their top speed sucks...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Unless you're really itching for backward compatibility with USB 1.1, there's no reason for a Mac user with FireWire to even consider a USB 2.0 HDD or other storage drive. Not only are the bridges less capable, the USB 2.0 spec itself is less capable, with no isosynchronous data transfer s.



    As for scanners and printers, they are relatively low bandwidth devices. You spend more time waiting for images to buffer out of a scanner's tiny built-in cache rather than waiting for data to come through the capable. With printers, most of the time you are printing tiny documents, and most printers also have very little built-in memory. As USB 2.0 devices, they aren't much faster than USB 1.1 devices. it's only the storage drives that are utilizing the bandwidth, and FireWire storage drives are better.
  • Reply 18 of 45
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Better but not cheaper or as widely available. I know for a fact that USB2.o speed makes a considerable difference for imaging devices and external burners. As for HDD's, personally, I'd rather have firewire, but you can make an argument that USB makes a better cross-platform solution for people sharing files between PC-mac. Fvcking Intel couldn't leave well enough alone, bastards, that way we'd have USB1.1 for keyboards, mice, joysticks and firewire for everything else.
  • Reply 19 of 45
    [quote] Unless you're really itching for backward compatibility with USB 1.1, there's no reason for a Mac user with FireWire to even consider a USB 2.0 HDD or other storage drive. <hr></blockquote>



    Sure there is-- versatility. If you've got to move that drive between your Mac and some anonymous PC, it's more likely to have USB2 than Firewire (or, at least it will be before 2003 is out). The best solution is just to buy a drive with both Firewire & USB2 connections.



    [quote] As for scanners and printers, they are relatively low bandwidth devices. <hr></blockquote>



    And the problem is, they're connected to the computer through an even lower bandwidth interface. I'd imagine typical consumer level scanners & printers are capable of pumping data at 2-3 times what USB1 allows. As an example, when UMAX had a consumer Firewire scanner (can't seem to find it on their website now), they had comparisons with the comparable USB scanner. The Firewire scanner completed a scan of a 8.5x11" sheet 2-3 times faster than the USB scanner did.



    [quote] With printers, most of the time you are printing tiny documents, and most printers also have very little built-in memory. As USB 2.0 devices, they aren't much faster than USB 1.1 devices. <hr></blockquote>



    On the contrary-- if you've got <a href="http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&bc=23&p=19&product=6 32" target="_blank">one of these</a>, you wait upwards of 2-3 minutes for a full page image to transfer over USB, after which printing starts. The actual printing takes about a minute and a half. If a USB2 increases the transfer speed by a factor of ten, then the transfer would take less than 20 seconds. That would be a decent reduction in printing time, if you ask me. (Laser printers are the same way-- they load the entire page definition into memory before printing.)



    [quote] it's only the storage drives that are utilizing the bandwidth, and FireWire storage drives are better. <hr></blockquote>



    I agree Firewire is a better standard, but the plain simple fact is that USB2 will be more widely adopted as the interface for computer peripherals. I see no reason for Apple not to adopt it.



    [ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: Gamblor ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 45
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Listen, I have a LaserJet 1200 with 72 MB of RAM, If I print alarge document via USB 1.1 or USB 2.0, it takes the same amount of time to finish. I also have an Epson Perfection 2450, and at most, when connected via FireWire or USB 2.0, it is fractionally faster than when connected over USB 1.1.
Sign In or Register to comment.