IBM, Sony, Apple: the new PPC alliance?
Reply 21 of 34
March 5, 2003 8:57AM
The camcorder industry, at least the professional sector, will switch to FW 800 with time. Just because many manufacturers have USB 2 enabled video recorders doesn't mean that FW 800 is a total flunk. It took a while for ieee 1394 to gain popularity on the PC, but look now.
Reply 22 of 34
March 5, 2003 9:45AM
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>The camcorder industry, at least the professional sector, will switch to FW 800 with time. Just because many manufacturers have USB 2 enabled video recorders doesn't mean that FW 800 is a total flunk. It took a while for ieee 1394 to gain popularity on the PC, but look now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would camcorders use FW800? In fact don't most of them use FW100 now?
Unlike USB, with Firewire it's the same protocol.
Reply 23 of 34
March 5, 2003 9:46AM
To put it another way (making it mainfully obvious) any firewire device which is at the END of a chain doesn't slow down the whole bus regardless how slow it is. You can connect a FW100 device to a FW400 device to a FW800 device to your powerbook and they will all run full speed.
That's one of the inherent benefits of firewire!
Reply 24 of 34
March 5, 2003 10:13AM
Posted by Strobe:
[quote] Why would camcorders use FW800? In fact don't most of them use FW100 now? <hr></blockquote>
Whoa, you are wrong on that one!
, there is no such thing as FW 100. If you are talking about the original firewire, that is FW 400. And most camcorders, as of now, have support for ieee 1394, a.k.a. Firewire or iLink. And FW 800 is compatible with USB 2.0.
Reply 25 of 34
March 5, 2003 10:49AM
FW800 is compatible with *USB 2.0*??
Er... can I have some of what you're smoking?
"And in the latest news, the PowerPC runs Pentium binary code..."
Reply 26 of 34
March 5, 2003 12:15PM
Most DV camcorders that I know of transfer at 100Mb/sec. I guess Firewire is always 400Mb or 800Mb, but the camcorders don't get that fast, because they can't read from the tape head and transfer the data any faster than that.
Reply 27 of 34
March 5, 2003 12:31PM
Whoa this thread kinda went OT.
FW can transmit at different speeds. Although this is transparent to the user.
For instance Yamaha's mLAN only caps out out 200mbps for Firewire. They have a new generation chipset that supports the full 400mpbs but initial incarnation only utilized the bandwidth necessary.
In 5 years HD Cams will be available that throughput more than enough to saturate a FW bus so FW800 will be needed.
Don't be suprised to see some Panasonic VTR's with FW800 spring up soon enough. HD Video can take up to 30+Mbps throughput.
I don't know why people continute to make statements like
"you don't need that bandwidth"
When has a computer or device EVER had too much bandwidth. It's the geek version of "you can't be too rich or too thin"
FW800 is more than just increased speed.
1. It supports longer cable lengths
2. The signalling has standardized on 8B10B same as Gigabit and Fibrechannel I believe.
3 the bus arbitration is more efficient.
Reply 28 of 34
March 5, 2003 2:23PM
Sorry, it isn't USB 2 compatible. MY BAD. FORGIVE ME. But why use USB 2 when you have a faster, more reliable, and versatile standard?
Reply 29 of 34
March 5, 2003 2:26PM
Talking about HD (High Definition) and Firewire, it looks like firewire is being used as the standard on recorders (currently DVHS) that record HDTV. More than likely firewire will become the standard input on DVHS and blue laser DVD recorders that record HDTV. The signal will then be outputed via the component outputs.
Firewire is definitely the way of the future.
Reply 30 of 34
March 5, 2003 2:31PM
Originally posted by Leonard:
[quote] Firewire is definitely the way of the future <hr></blockquote>
Well, duh, of course! It's Apple we are talking about!
Reply 31 of 34
March 5, 2003 3:28PM
Macworld UK is running the news that Apple is about to launch "an online music downloading subscription service for Mac users in collaboration with the big five major record labels", and goes on to quote the LA times that "no licensing deals have yet been announced, but that "at least four" of the five majors have "committed their music to Apple's service". Sony is reportedly not wholly on board at this time.
Reply 32 of 34
March 5, 2003 10:33PM
Also on the apple/sony thread, Sony clies may not work on a mac out of the box but they do provide a link on their (sony that is) website to the missing link, a $30 program that integrates your clie with some of the iapps. Im sure sony just doesnt care to develop software for osx as well as windows and rightly so, it would be nice if sony ditched windows though.
Reply 33 of 34
March 5, 2003 11:05PM
[quote]Originally posted by
<strong>I'm not sure about points 1 and 2, but on point 3 there is a reason. If I recall correctly, when FireWire was released, Apple was charging a licensing fee for using the name and logo.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 'flap' was about the _patents_ that a cabal of companies held, one of which was Apple. Sony was also one of the main cabal members/proponents -> they had free use of the patents _anyway_.
Now some of the non-cabal members were irked about royalty issues (Say... Intel), so there was penty of moaning going on. But Apple, Sony, and 6 others (Phillips comes to mind) were 'cooperating' & cross licensing things to one another.
Reply 34 of 34
March 6, 2003 10:38AM
A bit off subject:
Look at sony. Nice, beautiful hardware, expensive prices. It seems like sony is more like Apple than anyone else. Most Japanese manufactirers like the "Zen" component in their products. Then why doesn't Sony run the Mac OS?