"Firewire 800" vs. Gigawire

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Apple's now made an explicit distinction between the two Firewire generations. Could Gigawire be the name for the faster, optical Firewire version?



So:

"Firewire 400"

"Firewire 800"

and "Gigawire"?



Interesting marketing labels...



Screed
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    Or Gigawire was a name for FireWire 800 that did not get used.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Interesting that they call it firewire 800, because isn't the speed contingent upon the type of cable?
  • Reply 3 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>Interesting that they call it firewire 800, because isn't the speed contingent upon the type of cable?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Well.. It'll work for most consumers and 'pro-sumers'..

    Only tech-geeks know you can use other wires and get better speeds!
  • Reply 4 of 22
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    Why on earth must Gigawire have anything to do with Firewire?
  • Reply 5 of 22
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,715member
    [quote]Originally posted by strobe:

    <strong>Why on earth must Gigawire have anything to do with Firewire?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree. FireWire is such a cool name anyway. Great for marketing, and much better than iLink. I think Gigawire may be something else.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    1394b has multiple speeds. Apple's using 800 mbps 1394b. You can't call it GigaWire if it doesn't support Gigabit data throughput!



    [ 01-07-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 22
    This quote from Apple's description on the new 17" powerbook page makes it sound as if Firewire 800 is not backwards compatible:



    "The new 17-inch PowerBook G4 has two FireWire ports — one for the hundreds of FireWire 400 peripherals already available, and the other for the coming generation of FireWire 800 peripherals."



    Anyone know if this is true or if it is just more misinformed marketing BS?
  • Reply 8 of 22
    The connectors are different for some reason.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by griel_del_noche:

    <strong>This quote from Apple's description on the new 17" powerbook page makes it sound as if Firewire 800 is not backwards compatible:



    "The new 17-inch PowerBook G4 has two FireWire ports — one for the hundreds of FireWire 400 peripherals already available, and the other for the coming generation of FireWire 800 peripherals."



    Anyone know if this is true or if it is just more misinformed marketing BS?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You cannot connect FW800 devices to FW400 ports (without additional hardware, that is). While you also want to avoid putting both kinds of devices on the same chain for speed reasons, it is possible, and they could in theory have just provided the 800-style connector (note that Steve mentioned during the Keynote that the PB comes with a small adapter that allows you to connect old devices to the new port). The FW spec also allows for 800+ only ports that are not backwards compatible, but it looks like Apple chose to not use those.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 10 of 22
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:

    <strong>The connectors are different for some reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    while backwards compatilibity is an obvious hindrance to being SOTA, i think it would be better to get slightly less throughput and backwards compatilibity. maybe this isn't possible though.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    I just like the shape of the old ones.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    coscos Posts: 99member
    Did anyone ever stop to think that the 800 megabits per second will ever reach 1000+ megabits... hence the need for the name gigawire?



    Seems to me Apple was just planning ahead before someone stole the name (after drawing the obvious conclusions...)



    I guess its not as obvious as Apple thought it might be <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 13 of 22
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by COS:

    <strong>

    I guess its not as obvious as Apple thought it might be <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was sorta kindy hinting at that. calling FireWire 800 'GigaWire' would be false advertising, so GigaWire could certainly be used for later implementations of 1.6 gigabit and 3.2 gigabit FireWire.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    producerproducer Posts: 283member
    My opinion is that Gigawire...if they use the name might be used for Firewireless...which I believe combines 802.11 with firewire..
  • Reply 15 of 22
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:

    <strong>The connectors are different for some reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    One of the reasons likely being too many blown Mobo's ...



    FW is meant to be hot pluggable, unfortunately, the old connectors didn't do as good a job of this as they thought ...



    It turns out that if you accidently wiggle the old FW connector to your Mac in just the wrong way ... the power wires can cross connect with the data wires ... and Poof! There's goes both your PowerBook's FW Port (read: Mobo replacement) and your external device in a cute little puff of smoke.



    Hmmmmm ... how do I know?



    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr .....
  • Reply 16 of 22
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    [quote]Originally posted by COS:

    <strong>Did anyone ever stop to think that the 800 megabits per second will ever reach 1000+ megabits... hence the need for the name gigawire?



    Seems to me Apple was just planning ahead before someone stole the name (after drawing the obvious conclusions...)



    I guess its not as obvious as Apple thought it might be <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No. Firewire speeds are 400, 800, 1200, etc. Labelling it Gigawire would just be plain stupid misleading since it does not describe ANY speed of the 1394b protocal. Where did ScreeD see the term Gigawire being used anyway?
  • Reply 17 of 22
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    good god. do none of you ever read my fuggin' posts?!?!? i have said this 1.8 million times, AND it has been mentioned by As The Apple Turns, copied and pasted for you people to (hopefully) read AND retain:



    [quote](***** originally posted just before LAST YEAR's MW Expo SF *****)



    Most of this is idle and baseless speculation, with a healthy dose of wishful thinking thrown in, but there is a basis for at least the "wireless 'net" stuff we're tossing around. If you're a rumor hound at all, presumably you've heard the term "Gigawire" kicked around in the context of allegedly leaked info about Apple's upcoming Mac products. We never really ran across anyone who could tell us what Gigawire actually is, but based on the context of its usage, we had taken to assuming that it's Apple's name for the next and higher-bandwidth version of FireWire. But if it is, it's apparently capable of much more than just hooking up hard drives and pushing digital video data.



    Try this: take a virtual visit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Click to search for trademarks, and opt for the "New User Form Search (Basic)." Search for any trademarks whose Owner Name and Address field contains "Apple Computer." You'll wind up with a list of some 600-odd trademarks registered by Apple. Among them is FireWire, and if you pull up the detail listing, you'll note that under "Goods and Services" is a pretty lengthy list of stuff like "computer peripherals and consumer electronics, namely, scanners, smart monitors, modems, printers, disk drives," and all sorts of like devices. So far so good.



    Now find the entry for Gigawire, registered this past September. If it were just a faster version of FireWire, the "Goods and Services" entry should be pretty similar, right? But instead, we see this: "Telecommunication services; cellular telephone communication; Communication by computer terminals, communication by telephone, facsimile transmission; providing of electronic mail (E-Mail); computer aided transmission of messages and images; communication between computer peripherals and devices; information about telecommunication." Doesn't that sound like a lot more than a zippier peripheral interconnect bus to you?<hr></blockquote>



    so THERE.



    [ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 22
    macgregormacgregor Posts: 1,434member
    Good job rok!



    Just because you need an adapter doesn't mean that it isn't backward compatible. A FW device with adapter will still be able to use the FW800 port. I thing the PowerBooks are probably just not going to need more than one FW800 device or daisychain for awhile. Having one of each at least assures us that it isn't two FW800 ports secretly attached to just one mobo connection!



    Gigawire is still sleeping....it has not yet awaken.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    A new Maccentral story seems to indicate that the faster speeds are possible with firewire 800 but that it would require a fiber optic connector and cable rather than the connector included on the new Powerbooks. It seems that the faster speeds are not of immediate intreast to third party developers at this time. Maybe when new PMs come out with more space for different connectors or slots for specialized PCI cards. An adaptor to go to fiber optic from the current connector probably wouldn't work.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by nebcon65:

    <strong>A new Maccentral story seems to indicate that the faster speeds are possible with firewire 800 but that it would require a fiber optic connector and cable rather than the connector included on the new Powerbooks.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not true. Speeds up to 3.2 Gigabit will be possible at up to 4.5 meters with the 9-pin connector Apple has provided. 3.2 Gigabit FireWire has not been released yet, however.
Sign In or Register to comment.