The problem with Firewire is that probably fewer than 5% of computer users will ever touch a FW device, while 100% use USB. And once the last computers with IDE die off over the next few years, 100% will use SATA.
Wanna bet? The future of Computing will change massively when basic Motherboard design makes it's next evolutionary step.
This group lists all sorts of Industry heavyweights that make USB a no go.
That's a good question. Just about everything these days is USB 2. Even Apple dropped FW from the iPod! Never understood that one. I can see less manufacturing costs, but at the same time Apple abandoned it's own technology and promoted further adoption of USB 2 thereby decreasing demand for FW.
Yes, they decreased demand for FW but they sure increased demand with full commonality for the iPod. As much as I see the advantages of FW, I don't think they outweigh having a common connector for a device such as the iPod.
Yes, they decreased demand for FW but they sure increased demand with full commonality for the iPod. As much as I see the advantages of FW, I don't think they outweigh having a common connector for a device such as the iPod.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
Oh, come on. That's just laughable. Sure, all of those companies make Firewire devices. USB a no go? That's a fantasy from 12 years ago.
Show me the military applications of USB or the autoindustry applications of USB that work in conjunction with guidance systems, control systems and more.
I would love to see these systems that replaced Firewire.
Show me the military applications of USB or the autoindustry applications of USB that work in conjunction with guidance systems, control systems and more.
I would love to see these systems that replaced Firewire.
And that has what to do with my point? Firewire is a very niche technology compared to USB, and that is not going to change.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
I don't believe that's correct. The original iPod of October 2001 was FW-only and Mac-only. The second generation (July 2002) was FW-only but added Windows support. The third generation (April 2003) added USB but that was a Windows-only model. I'm almost certain that USB support for Mac-paired iPods didn't commence until 2004.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
Not true.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
January 2005 iPod shuffle (USB only)
September 2006 iPod nano and iPod 5G USB only
FW is not a "niche" technology, it's not just aimed at doing everything like USB is.
USB is a do-it-all solution, cheap enough for consumers, with middle of the road performance.
FW is very good at big data transfers, think storage, HDDs, audio and video. Can be daisy-chained, has more power, lower latency, etc. Can be a little more expensive than USB, but if you need speed and reliability, it's a better choice.
Then eSATA is even faster but only for HDDs.
Then there's SAS, Fiber, etc...
USB has its strengths and benefits, so does FW (and eSATA, etc.). It's up to the BUYER to know what fits his needs the best. It's good to have that kind of choice.
In one sense, it reminds me of the "war" between PC (USB) and Mac (FW), while PC (USB) is less expensive and has more applications, Mac (FW) is more expensive, but is best at what it's aimed for, more reliable.
FWIW, I'll choose FW over USB anytime for HDDs, external ODDs, audio and video interfaces.
I'm eager to see what manufacturers will do with FW3200.
Another use for Firewire that I came across, in an engineering rag, is as an interface to Software Defined Radio hardware. There in was described a ham radio that interfaced the analog world to a PC used as the signal processor
Just another item to add to the list of uses for Firewire. The point Firewire has proven to be very successful doing things that other interfaces seem to have trouble with. It is not perfect, for example in it's current form it is considered to be a low speed interface in the world of machine vision.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
January 2005 iPod shuffle (USB only)
September 2006 iPod nano and iPod 5G USB only
FW is not a "niche" technology, it's not just aimed at doing everything like USB is.
USB is a do-it-all solution, cheap enough for consumers, with middle of the road performance.
FW is very good at big data transfers, think storage, HDDs, audio and video. Can be daisy-chained, has more power, lower latency, etc. Can be a little more expensive than USB, but if you need speed and reliability, it's a better choice.
Then eSATA is even faster but only for HDDs.
Then there's SAS, Fiber, etc...
USB has its strengths and benefits, so does FW (and eSATA, etc.). It's up to the BUYER to know what fits his needs the best. It's good to have that kind of choice.
In one sense, it reminds me of the "war" between PC (USB) and Mac (FW), while PC (USB) is less expensive and has more applications, Mac (FW) is more expensive, but is best at what it's aimed for, more reliable.
FWIW, I'll choose FW over USB anytime for HDDs, external ODDs, audio and video interfaces.
I'm eager to see what manufacturers will do with FW3200.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
OK. Perhaps it was my second iPod that came with both. Nonetheless, point being that Apple shipped iPods with both USB and FW. They were shipped with two cables, one USB and one FW. You connected each to the same connector on the iPod.
OK. Perhaps it was my second iPod that came with both. Nonetheless, point being that Apple shipped iPods with both USB and FW. They were shipped with two cables, one USB and one FW. You connected each to the same connector on the iPod.
I think a point just about anyone might make is that FireWire doesn't really do anything for an iPod that USB can't. Considering that USB is ubiquitous in the Windows world while FireWire isn't, that points to the iPod being a USB device.
I think a point just about anyone might make is that FireWire doesn't really do anything for an iPod that USB can't. Considering that USB is ubiquitous in the Windows world while FireWire isn't, that points to the iPod being a USB device.
That's obvious. Except the bit about FW not really doing anything that USB can't. FW is way faster.
That's obvious. Except the bit about FW not really doing anything that USB can't. FW is way faster.
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
Do a search for Firewire vs USB2 and you will get plenty of data.
Yes, we all understand the real world speed difference between FW and USB on high performance drives but the question was in regard to iPods (anything but a high performance drive). Syncing with iTunes is not exactly the same thing as a high volume data copy. Given all that, if there's still a speed difference between FW and USB on syncing an iPod, it can't be of enough consequence for Apple to maintain two different interfaces.
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
I doubt Apple cares about sync times, as the transfer speed seems to go down for every new generation?
Comments
The problem with Firewire is that probably fewer than 5% of computer users will ever touch a FW device, while 100% use USB. And once the last computers with IDE die off over the next few years, 100% will use SATA.
Wanna bet? The future of Computing will change massively when basic Motherboard design makes it's next evolutionary step.
This group lists all sorts of Industry heavyweights that make USB a no go.
http://www.1394ta.org/index.html
That's a good question. Just about everything these days is USB 2. Even Apple dropped FW from the iPod! Never understood that one. I can see less manufacturing costs, but at the same time Apple abandoned it's own technology and promoted further adoption of USB 2 thereby decreasing demand for FW.
Yes, they decreased demand for FW but they sure increased demand with full commonality for the iPod. As much as I see the advantages of FW, I don't think they outweigh having a common connector for a device such as the iPod.
Wanna bet? The future of Computing will change massively when basic Motherboard design makes it's next evolutionary step.
This group lists all sorts of Industry heavyweights that make USB a no go.
http://www.1394ta.org/index.html
Oh, come on. That's just laughable. Sure, all of those companies make Firewire devices. USB a no go? That's a fantasy from 12 years ago.
Yes, they decreased demand for FW but they sure increased demand with full commonality for the iPod. As much as I see the advantages of FW, I don't think they outweigh having a common connector for a device such as the iPod.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
Oh, come on. That's just laughable. Sure, all of those companies make Firewire devices. USB a no go? That's a fantasy from 12 years ago.
Show me the military applications of USB or the autoindustry applications of USB that work in conjunction with guidance systems, control systems and more.
I would love to see these systems that replaced Firewire.
Show me the military applications of USB or the autoindustry applications of USB that work in conjunction with guidance systems, control systems and more.
I would love to see these systems that replaced Firewire.
And that has what to do with my point? Firewire is a very niche technology compared to USB, and that is not going to change.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
I don't believe that's correct. The original iPod of October 2001 was FW-only and Mac-only. The second generation (July 2002) was FW-only but added Windows support. The third generation (April 2003) added USB but that was a Windows-only model. I'm almost certain that USB support for Mac-paired iPods didn't commence until 2004.
Not true. From day one, the iPod came with both USB and FW. At some point Apple dropped FW from it.
Not true.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
January 2005 iPod shuffle (USB only)
September 2006 iPod nano and iPod 5G USB only
FW is not a "niche" technology, it's not just aimed at doing everything like USB is.
USB is a do-it-all solution, cheap enough for consumers, with middle of the road performance.
FW is very good at big data transfers, think storage, HDDs, audio and video. Can be daisy-chained, has more power, lower latency, etc. Can be a little more expensive than USB, but if you need speed and reliability, it's a better choice.
Then eSATA is even faster but only for HDDs.
Then there's SAS, Fiber, etc...
USB has its strengths and benefits, so does FW (and eSATA, etc.). It's up to the BUYER to know what fits his needs the best. It's good to have that kind of choice.
In one sense, it reminds me of the "war" between PC (USB) and Mac (FW), while PC (USB) is less expensive and has more applications, Mac (FW) is more expensive, but is best at what it's aimed for, more reliable.
FWIW, I'll choose FW over USB anytime for HDDs, external ODDs, audio and video interfaces.
I'm eager to see what manufacturers will do with FW3200.
Just another item to add to the list of uses for Firewire. The point Firewire has proven to be very successful doing things that other interfaces seem to have trouble with. It is not perfect, for example in it's current form it is considered to be a low speed interface in the world of machine vision.
Dave
Not true.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
January 2005 iPod shuffle (USB only)
September 2006 iPod nano and iPod 5G USB only
FW is not a "niche" technology, it's not just aimed at doing everything like USB is.
USB is a do-it-all solution, cheap enough for consumers, with middle of the road performance.
FW is very good at big data transfers, think storage, HDDs, audio and video. Can be daisy-chained, has more power, lower latency, etc. Can be a little more expensive than USB, but if you need speed and reliability, it's a better choice.
Then eSATA is even faster but only for HDDs.
Then there's SAS, Fiber, etc...
USB has its strengths and benefits, so does FW (and eSATA, etc.). It's up to the BUYER to know what fits his needs the best. It's good to have that kind of choice.
In one sense, it reminds me of the "war" between PC (USB) and Mac (FW), while PC (USB) is less expensive and has more applications, Mac (FW) is more expensive, but is best at what it's aimed for, more reliable.
FWIW, I'll choose FW over USB anytime for HDDs, external ODDs, audio and video interfaces.
I'm eager to see what manufacturers will do with FW3200.
Exactly.
Not true.
Day one: from Oct. 2001 to Apr. 2003 the original iPod had only FW.
Day two: from Apr. 2003 to Sept 2006 iPod and iPod mini had FW and USB
OK. Perhaps it was my second iPod that came with both. Nonetheless, point being that Apple shipped iPods with both USB and FW. They were shipped with two cables, one USB and one FW. You connected each to the same connector on the iPod.
OK. Perhaps it was my second iPod that came with both. Nonetheless, point being that Apple shipped iPods with both USB and FW. They were shipped with two cables, one USB and one FW. You connected each to the same connector on the iPod.
I think a point just about anyone might make is that FireWire doesn't really do anything for an iPod that USB can't. Considering that USB is ubiquitous in the Windows world while FireWire isn't, that points to the iPod being a USB device.
ast is good of course but so is adoption, Firewire simply has had issues with adoption on the PC side.
Hardly surprising. USB is an Intel standard, and Intel controls PC design.
Firewire is what HDMI should have been.
Hardly surprising. USB is an Intel standard, and Intel controls PC design.
Firewire is what HDMI should have been.
Now you're just going to confuse people.
I think a point just about anyone might make is that FireWire doesn't really do anything for an iPod that USB can't. Considering that USB is ubiquitous in the Windows world while FireWire isn't, that points to the iPod being a USB device.
That's obvious. Except the bit about FW not really doing anything that USB can't. FW is way faster.
That's obvious. Except the bit about FW not really doing anything that USB can't. FW is way faster.
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
Do a search for Firewire vs USB2 and you will get plenty of data.
Here's one: http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm
Read Test:
\t
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
\t Write Test:
\t
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
Do a search for Firewire vs USB2 and you will get plenty of data.
Here's one: http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm
Yes, we all understand the real world speed difference between FW and USB on high performance drives but the question was in regard to iPods (anything but a high performance drive). Syncing with iTunes is not exactly the same thing as a high volume data copy. Given all that, if there's still a speed difference between FW and USB on syncing an iPod, it can't be of enough consequence for Apple to maintain two different interfaces.
The comment was in regard to a single universal connector for iPods. I've never seen any data that says FW (when iPods had that) was faster for iPod transfers than USB. Is there data that says it was faster?
I doubt Apple cares about sync times, as the transfer speed seems to go down for every new generation?