I think they should have waited. But perhaps the new replacements are being delayed, and Apple had engineering reasons why they couldn't get FW back in. Who knows?
I think you're onto something. What if the new production method for these MacBricks makes it uneconomical to carve out a deep case, because it takes longer and generates more waste? If adding an express card slot or a Firewire port would have required such depth, there's the answer.
EDIT: OTOH, if this new production method means it's easier to make customized variations, and not be stuck with a rigid mass production mold, maybe Apple will add a deep-case version of their MacBricks with all the trimmings (extra ports) for $100 extra, and everybody's happy.
The military has been using more commercial technologies for years. They've been ordered to do so to, yes, save money. How many tens of (or more likely, hundreds of) millions would it cost to develop a new technology that would accomplish, what?
But this has no relation to what happens in the rest of the tech world.
thanks Mel you're making my point for me
How many tens / hundreds of millions would it cost to develop a new technology ?
So that's even less likely to happen for us civilians... if we want to replace FW (and I'm not against that if the benefits outweight the costs)
we'll have to pick a technology which already exists
(and no one seems able to answer my question as to which one that will be).
But don't forget that in the past it has been military R&D which has trickled down to civilian applications - not the otherway around - & yes most countries (other than the US and China) are getting smaller military budgets so they won't want to reinvent the wheel either.
However the result is clear... that of the existing or nearly developed technologies (FW, GigE, USB, ESata) they chose IEEE-1394 (Firewire)...
So when the peak of modern technology (aerospace) chooses to depend on the FW standard for rapid, reliable transmission of data in life and death situations - I think that says that FW isn't dead.
whether of not that will play out in our realm is certainly the question (as per your last sentence) but certainly it proves that FW is neither an irrelevant technology for reliable, rapid data transfer, nor one that is likely to disappear (given the lifetime of these jets).
We may in fact find that military development of IEEE-1394 leads to a faster FW spec (3200, 6400+)
The MacBook is arguably one of Apple's hottest selling models. If Apple doesn't care to put Firewire in it, I think that says something about their plans.
I have a mini-DV camera with Firewire I don't use much anymore so it's no big deal. I have three Firewire bus-powered 2.5" drive enclosures and three Firewire desktop 3.5" drive enclosures. One of the desktop models also has a USB 2 port so I'm good there. Since my current Macs have Firewire, I'm OK for now but I'll be phasing out the Firewire boxes one by one. I don't intend to buy any new Firewire products. It would be foolish to do so unless Apple makes a statement about their plans to continue support for the technology. It's doubtful anything but the pro Macs will retain Firewire past next year. Hopefully any new drive enclosures I need in the future will have USB 3. It's the future, man.
Yes totally agree - if it's only file transmission and/or data back-up then ESata or USB3 looks like it'll do a fine job for you... when they properly arrive (USB3 in terms of being available and ESata in terms of slimline 2.5" cases powered directly from the notebook).
I think there are suitable alternatives to iMovie on the PC side now...
If a DSLR can use a HD "back" for long capture and use the high-quality glass typical in still camera line-ups to achieve great depth of field, I think it will revolutionize video.
I doubt Canon will allow that. They DO have a camcorder division who'd tar and feather the DSLR folks. Hence the 4GB limit and 30 fps only mode. IMHO Canon is going to have a Red Scarlet competitor based on the 5D CMOS by NAB. Not 3K maybe but with awesome low light performance.
Of course, since you probably have all Nikon glass you probably aren't jumping up and down that Canon beat the D90 so dramatically on video.
Quote:
Can you imagine what you'd get with a Hassy or even a Bronica using this kind of technology? Unfortunately, we'll likely be stuck using a USB cable to download files...
Heh, actually the 5D doesn't have FW but just USB.
Development programs of 62 billion USD and unit cost of 140 million USD (for the F22 alone) so paying to develop a future/expensive/pending technology obviously wasn't an issue...
Remembering that these fighter jets are the pinnacle of US technology (for the F22 and the F35 is international) and typically have a lifetime of 20+ years.
That says a lot about how at least one segment of modern international industry sees the IEEE-1394 standard - in their opinion (at least) FW is far from dead.
Jeez. MIL-STD-1553 was the previous widely used databus and that originated in the 70s. Note that 1553 is STILL used on the F-35 and F-22 along with FiberChannel for avionics, 1394b for vehicle systems and EBR-1553 for bomb carriages. 1394B fits a particular niche but the tree structure can be an impediment for their application.
The military often lags state of the art because their systems move glacially. For example, those guys are basing their entire Network Centric warfare stuff on SOAP which has largely lost to REST based web services in the commercial sector. They use CORBA which is mostly dead in the commercial sector.
And they value certain things that we in the commercial sector don't much care about.
I doubt Canon will allow that. They DO have a camcorder division who'd tar and feather the DSLR folks. Hence the 4GB limit and 30 fps only mode. IMHO Canon is going to have a Red Scarlet competitor based on the 5D CMOS by NAB. Not 3K maybe but with awesome low light performance.
Of course, since you probably have all Nikon glass you probably aren't jumping up and down that Canon beat the D90 so dramatically on video.
True, a couple very good lenses left over from my 35mm film days, which is a major reason I went with a D300 rather than a Canon and have to buy new L-series.
However...
Here's a link to a very nicely done 720p/24fps video shot on a D90 by what appears to be a "Joe Average" user, although he does a nice job with rack focus and low light. (No, I didn't say "Joe Six-Pack" or "Joe the Plumber" --will somebody please put the rocks out of reach of the Dems??? )
I may have to pop for a D90 body now -- the wife finds the D300 a bit large, and on long hikes, heavy to carry. (I usually respond by offering to trade her the Bogen tripod and 503 head.)
Back to FW, checking on Apple's site, I notice there have been no changes or disclaimers posted on capturing video with a FireWire-equipped camcorder in the QuickTime section. Are we to assume that a new MacBook owner who upgrades his QT Player to Pro is going to get a refund if requested since he can't figure out how to stuff a FW400 cable into a USB slot?
I don't have a USB-out camcorder - has anyone tried connecting a USB cam such as Jobs allegedly claimed is all the rage and recorded desktop video with QT Pro? (Although I suppose you could use iMovie, but that seems like a lot of software overhead.)
Probably only a sudden drop in MacBook sales would prompt Apple to change its plans.
I'm guessing a relatively small percentage of potential MacBook buyers will be affected by this. Some will buy MBPs which is what Apple wants. Other buyers might delay purchases, buy the white MacBook or look at other options. Apple might not even notice a drop in sales, since they seem to be on a roll.
Continuing bad press could possibly have an affect. Look what happened when Apple suddenly dropped the price on the iPhone. But it's likely the press and Mac web will forget about this soon, much like they did when the Air was introduced without Firewire.
BTW, has anyone noticed the new 24" display no longer has Firewire ports? I expect when all of the Cinema Displays are revamped they'll be USB only as well.
How many tens / hundreds of millions would it cost to develop a new technology ?
So that's even less likely to happen for us civilians... if we want to replace FW (and I'm not against that if the benefits outweight the costs)
we'll have to pick a technology which already exists
(and no one seems able to answer my question as to which one that will be).
USB3
Quote:
But don't forget that in the past it has been military R&D which has trickled down to civilian applications - not the otherway around - & yes most countries (other than the US and China) are getting smaller military budgets so they won't want to reinvent the wheel either.
However the result is clear... that of the existing or nearly developed technologies (FW, GigE, USB, ESata) they chose IEEE-1394 (Firewire)...
1553 never trickled down to commercial applications because nobody but the military and airplane makers needs a linear topology network architecture.
Note that 1394 was not chosen for avionics but to get data back from some sensor to the host computer. Fiber channel was choosen for avionics. Most of the network backbone in these fighters is fiber not copper.
The primary competitors for a next generation data bus were: ATM, FDDI and Fiber Channel. The secondary ones were FastE/GigE and Firewire.
Looks like to me that Fiber Channel won but FW is used where copper and non-deterministic behavior is okay.
Quote:
So when the peak of modern technology (aerospace) chooses to depend on the FW standard for rapid, reliable transmission of data in life and death situations - I think that says that FW isn't dead.
That the military chooses fiberchannel or FW for fighter aircraft has nearly zero implications on what we should be using on the desktop.
The military is well known to adopt things from the commercial world that were dead quickly thereafter on the commercial market. You can pretty much depend on DoD to charge into widespread adoption of dead technology.
Quote:
whether of not that will play out in our realm is certainly the question (as per your last sentence) but certainly it proves that FW is neither an irrelevant technology for reliable, rapid data transfer, nor one that is likely to disappear (given the lifetime of these jets).
We may in fact find that military development of IEEE-1394 leads to a faster FW spec (3200, 6400+)
Possible but it won't mean anything more to us than MIL-STD-1773 did (1553 on fiber).
The military often lags state of the art because their systems move glacially...
And they value certain things that we in the commercial sector don't much care about.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
As an aside, I've got a bud who flew B2s for years out of Missouri, and said it was odd knowing you could go to work in the morning and come back early the next day after striking at the other side of the planet. More like being a short-haul trucker than a global agent of mass destruction. Then again, as an ex-grunt, I could appreciate the ease of footgear maintenance over foxhole life.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
Gotta be careful when you're punching into your OnStar on one of those babies -- hit one wrong button and BOOM! "Dang, I just wanted to find the nearest coffee shop...."
I may have to pop for a D90 body now -- the wife finds the D300 a bit large, and on long hikes, heavy to carry. (I usually respond by offering to trade her the Bogen tripod and 503 head.)
I'd wait. Nikon isn't going leave the 5D MkII unanswered for long unless you think it can be a firmware fix.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
As an aside, I've got a bud who flew B2s for years out of Missouri, and said it was odd knowing you could go to work in the morning and come back early the next day after striking at the other side of the planet. More like being a short-haul trucker than a global agent of mass destruction. Then again, as an ex-grunt, I could appreciate the ease of footgear maintenance over foxhole life.
Heh...if we wanted easy we'd all be wearing blue.
Folks think the military or NASA is so advanced. Until they do it for a living. It sure ain't like the movies.
You can pretty much depend on DoD to charge into widespread adoption of dead technology.
There's a method to that madness. The technology has likely already been thoroughly tested and proven incapable of the mission it's being sought for, and then when it fails, (DoD) can always use the "but you said to save money" line.
so explain how USB 3 is going to magically replace
either GigE (for pure p2p)
or firewire (mobile p2p with decent power)....
especially with USB3's 900 mA (a measly 5 W) current power limitations
peripheral power might come down but that's balanced by increasing demands / speed / size
remember that
1. host contolled / star topology requires much more CPU power - and we're already struggling with heat problems in most laptops errr notebooks (Intel's latest air flow heat exchanger 'innovation' is testament to this)... we'll see if USB3 speeds on a star structure simply compounds the problem.
2. home networks (of which there are going to be a lot in the future) will collapse if you remove the host of a star based network - with tree based they keep on running... not such a problem for desktops (which remain in place) but for notebooks it creates limitations.
Admittedly No 2 can be solved by using GigE at home (no power limitations since power is readily available)
Again - i'm not arguing for no USB3 - i'd love to have one on the 2009 books for pure data transfer as an upgrade to the out-of-date USB2... but I just can't see how we're actually moving forward if all that extra CPU power we pay for each upgrade is simply spent on speeding up an increasing number of host controller commands.
Do you see USB3 giving us back TDM ?
Oh and agreed regarding some military technology not reaching consumers... but that's like saying "joe the plumber doesn't buy rocket launchers..."
Again - i'm not arguing for no USB3 - i'd love to have one on the 2009 books for pure data transfer as an upgrade to the out-of-date USB2... but I just can't see how we're actually moving forward if all that extra CPU power we pay for each upgrade is simply spent on speeding up an increasing number of host controller commands.
USB technology= Host Controlled
USB technology= more drain on CPU
USB technology= created by Intel
Intel= largest CPU global provider
I'm all for seeing USB improve but the hidden costs of USB are in the need to buy a beefier machine to handle what could be done by a smarter controller and as otwayross says lower power meaning two cables for many devices.
Continuing bad press could possibly have an effect. Look what happened when Apple suddenly dropped the price on the iPhone. But it's likely the press and Mac web will forget about this soon, much like they did when the Air was introduced without Firewire.
I think that bad press, and bad PR generally, could outweigh any savings to Apple from omitting a Firewire port and/or Express slot. For instance, critics could quote this bit of dialog from the Get-A-Mac "Podium" episode (2007):
Quote:
PC Guy: "If your printer isn't compatible with Vista, I say, 'Buy a new printer.' Ask not what Vista can do for you, ask what you can buy for Vista."
YouTube gives PO'd customers an outlet to greatly magnify the effect of their gripes, especially if the gripes are presented in a witty way, with good actors and top production values. Since so many talented audio / visual types are among those affected by Apple's bonehead move, they might well put together well-crafted episodes mockingly built on the Get A Mac campaign. They could become YouTube "hits" and inflict hundreds of millions of dollars of damage on Apple's carefully built image. Scripts for such a series practically write themselves. Here's one such:
Mac Guy [Wearing an old-style red fireman's helmet with long trailing back piece]: "I'm a Mac."
PC Guy: "And I'm a PC. Whatcha selling there?"
[The PC Guy is standing in front of a card table the Mac Guy has set up in his yard, where he is holding a yard sale. On the table is lots of audio visual equipment, plus a sign saying "Bought just last month: 80% off." (There's room for several additional signs, if you can think of good contents.)]
Mac Guy: [Enthusiastically describes several pieces of practically unused high-end audio/visual cameras, etc.]
PC Guy: "But why are you selling them, then?”
Mac Guy: "Well, I want a new MacBook--my old one is on its last legs--but the new one doesn't have a Firewire port, so I can't use my old equipment with it anymore."
PC Guy: "So you're going to have to buy a lot of new gear?"
Mac Guy: "If your gear isn't compatible with Apple, I say, 'Buy new gear.' Ask not what Apple can do for you, ask what you can buy for Apple."
PC Guy: "I see. [Said like a shrink.] And what's with the fireman's helmet?"
Mac Guy: "Well, it advertises that I'm offering fire-sale prices."
PC Guy: "Why's that?"
Mac Guy: "Well, because a lot of other folks have orphaned Firewire peripherals that they're getting rid of, prices have really tumbled, so I have to outrace them to the bottom. Pretty soon I won't be able to give this stuff away."
PC Guy: "I'll give you a dime on the dollar for the lot."
Mac Guy: "Done!"
PC Guy: [Winks to the camera.] "They'll work fine with MY laptop."
I have fragments of ideas for a couple of other episodes. One would involve the PC Guy attempting to intercede for his friend the Mac Guy by appealing to a crowned figure on a throne. This king is seen from behind, with the PC Guy facing him and the camera. The PC Guy points out how the king gave no warning of Firewire’s removal before the Mac Guy loaded up on his equipment, and how much it's cost him, and how the Mac Guy's is being taunted by his PC-using acquaintances. The king replies, "I banish you. I am the king." PC Guy has the last word, though: "I'm going to tell him that you're naked." (Pretty punchy, huh?)
A third episode has a bunch of Apple Fanboys approach the Mac Guy at his yard sale. They sneer at his outdated Firewire peripherals, tell Mac Guy he's a whiner, and berate him to cough up the cash to buy a MacBook Pro. One of them would repeat the line, "If your gear isn't compatible with Apple, I say, 'Buy new gear.' Ask not what Apple can do for you, ask what you can buy for Apple."
Additional episodes involving these Fanboys could easily be created, utilizing the sneering quotes that rabid Apple apologists have already posted on the Firewire topic. These would, if deftly done and hence popular on YouTube, create a new and wildly unpopular image of the typical Mac user. It would be sweet revenge for the Firewire-dependent "first wives" whom Apple has scorned.
Perhaps a thread could be set up on this site where ideas for more episodes of this nature could be tossed into the pot. (Even if they're never produced, they're fun to contemplate.) Perhaps this cloud on the horizon will concentrate Apple's mind. It should. Apple has enemies who would gleefully publicize such episodes. The Linux guys, for instance, would spread the word and write up episodes of their own.
I'm all for seeing USB improve but the hidden costs of USB are in the need to buy a beefier machine to handle what could be done by a smarter controller and as otwayross says lower power meaning two cables for many devices.
Beefy machine? With a modern (Core 2 Duo) processor, a USB file transfer is going to be using less than half a percent of one core. We aren't using 200MHz P-IIs anymore.
Comments
I think they should have waited. But perhaps the new replacements are being delayed, and Apple had engineering reasons why they couldn't get FW back in. Who knows?
I think you're onto something. What if the new production method for these MacBricks makes it uneconomical to carve out a deep case, because it takes longer and generates more waste? If adding an express card slot or a Firewire port would have required such depth, there's the answer.
EDIT: OTOH, if this new production method means it's easier to make customized variations, and not be stuck with a rigid mass production mold, maybe Apple will add a deep-case version of their MacBricks with all the trimmings (extra ports) for $100 extra, and everybody's happy.
The military has been using more commercial technologies for years. They've been ordered to do so to, yes, save money. How many tens of (or more likely, hundreds of) millions would it cost to develop a new technology that would accomplish, what?
But this has no relation to what happens in the rest of the tech world.
thanks Mel you're making my point for me
How many tens / hundreds of millions would it cost to develop a new technology ?
So that's even less likely to happen for us civilians... if we want to replace FW (and I'm not against that if the benefits outweight the costs)
we'll have to pick a technology which already exists
(and no one seems able to answer my question as to which one that will be).
But don't forget that in the past it has been military R&D which has trickled down to civilian applications - not the otherway around - & yes most countries (other than the US and China) are getting smaller military budgets so they won't want to reinvent the wheel either.
However the result is clear... that of the existing or nearly developed technologies (FW, GigE, USB, ESata) they chose IEEE-1394 (Firewire)...
So when the peak of modern technology (aerospace) chooses to depend on the FW standard for rapid, reliable transmission of data in life and death situations - I think that says that FW isn't dead.
whether of not that will play out in our realm is certainly the question (as per your last sentence) but certainly it proves that FW is neither an irrelevant technology for reliable, rapid data transfer, nor one that is likely to disappear (given the lifetime of these jets).
We may in fact find that military development of IEEE-1394 leads to a faster FW spec (3200, 6400+)
The MacBook is arguably one of Apple's hottest selling models. If Apple doesn't care to put Firewire in it, I think that says something about their plans.
I have a mini-DV camera with Firewire I don't use much anymore so it's no big deal. I have three Firewire bus-powered 2.5" drive enclosures and three Firewire desktop 3.5" drive enclosures. One of the desktop models also has a USB 2 port so I'm good there. Since my current Macs have Firewire, I'm OK for now but I'll be phasing out the Firewire boxes one by one. I don't intend to buy any new Firewire products. It would be foolish to do so unless Apple makes a statement about their plans to continue support for the technology. It's doubtful anything but the pro Macs will retain Firewire past next year. Hopefully any new drive enclosures I need in the future will have USB 3. It's the future, man.
Yes totally agree - if it's only file transmission and/or data back-up then ESata or USB3 looks like it'll do a fine job for you... when they properly arrive (USB3 in terms of being available and ESata in terms of slimline 2.5" cases powered directly from the notebook).
I think there are suitable alternatives to iMovie on the PC side now...
If a DSLR can use a HD "back" for long capture and use the high-quality glass typical in still camera line-ups to achieve great depth of field, I think it will revolutionize video.
I doubt Canon will allow that. They DO have a camcorder division who'd tar and feather the DSLR folks. Hence the 4GB limit and 30 fps only mode. IMHO Canon is going to have a Red Scarlet competitor based on the 5D CMOS by NAB. Not 3K maybe but with awesome low light performance.
Of course, since you probably have all Nikon glass you probably aren't jumping up and down that Canon beat the D90 so dramatically on video.
Can you imagine what you'd get with a Hassy or even a Bronica using this kind of technology? Unfortunately, we'll likely be stuck using a USB cable to download files...
Heh, actually the 5D doesn't have FW but just USB.
I'm not sure petitions will do it. It needs to be a more general uprising.
I suspect that certain videocam mfgrs. & audio gear producers are giving Apple an earful.
As a slight side point - what do you folks think about the idea that Lockheed Martin
recently chose to put the FW standard (no idea what actual connectors or speed used) in their new
F22 Raptor and F35 Lightning II planes? (look under avionics & design resp.)
Development programs of 62 billion USD and unit cost of 140 million USD (for the F22 alone) so paying to develop a future/expensive/pending technology obviously wasn't an issue...
Remembering that these fighter jets are the pinnacle of US technology (for the F22 and the F35 is international) and typically have a lifetime of 20+ years.
That says a lot about how at least one segment of modern international industry sees the IEEE-1394 standard - in their opinion (at least) FW is far from dead.
Jeez. MIL-STD-1553 was the previous widely used databus and that originated in the 70s. Note that 1553 is STILL used on the F-35 and F-22 along with FiberChannel for avionics, 1394b for vehicle systems and EBR-1553 for bomb carriages. 1394B fits a particular niche but the tree structure can be an impediment for their application.
The military often lags state of the art because their systems move glacially. For example, those guys are basing their entire Network Centric warfare stuff on SOAP which has largely lost to REST based web services in the commercial sector. They use CORBA which is mostly dead in the commercial sector.
And they value certain things that we in the commercial sector don't much care about.
I doubt Canon will allow that. They DO have a camcorder division who'd tar and feather the DSLR folks. Hence the 4GB limit and 30 fps only mode. IMHO Canon is going to have a Red Scarlet competitor based on the 5D CMOS by NAB. Not 3K maybe but with awesome low light performance.
Of course, since you probably have all Nikon glass you probably aren't jumping up and down that Canon beat the D90 so dramatically on video.
True, a couple very good lenses left over from my 35mm film days, which is a major reason I went with a D300 rather than a Canon and have to buy new L-series.
However...
Here's a link to a very nicely done 720p/24fps video shot on a D90 by what appears to be a "Joe Average" user, although he does a nice job with rack focus and low light. (No, I didn't say "Joe Six-Pack" or "Joe the Plumber" --will somebody please put the rocks out of reach of the Dems??? )
http://www.vimeo.com/1901269
I may have to pop for a D90 body now -- the wife finds the D300 a bit large, and on long hikes, heavy to carry. (I usually respond by offering to trade her the Bogen tripod and 503 head.)
Back to FW, checking on Apple's site, I notice there have been no changes or disclaimers posted on capturing video with a FireWire-equipped camcorder in the QuickTime section. Are we to assume that a new MacBook owner who upgrades his QT Player to Pro is going to get a refund if requested since he can't figure out how to stuff a FW400 cable into a USB slot?
I don't have a USB-out camcorder - has anyone tried connecting a USB cam such as Jobs allegedly claimed is all the rage and recorded desktop video with QT Pro? (Although I suppose you could use iMovie, but that seems like a lot of software overhead.)
I'm guessing a relatively small percentage of potential MacBook buyers will be affected by this. Some will buy MBPs which is what Apple wants. Other buyers might delay purchases, buy the white MacBook or look at other options. Apple might not even notice a drop in sales, since they seem to be on a roll.
Continuing bad press could possibly have an affect. Look what happened when Apple suddenly dropped the price on the iPhone. But it's likely the press and Mac web will forget about this soon, much like they did when the Air was introduced without Firewire.
BTW, has anyone noticed the new 24" display no longer has Firewire ports? I expect when all of the Cinema Displays are revamped they'll be USB only as well.
thanks Mel you're making my point for me
How many tens / hundreds of millions would it cost to develop a new technology ?
So that's even less likely to happen for us civilians... if we want to replace FW (and I'm not against that if the benefits outweight the costs)
we'll have to pick a technology which already exists
(and no one seems able to answer my question as to which one that will be).
USB3
But don't forget that in the past it has been military R&D which has trickled down to civilian applications - not the otherway around - & yes most countries (other than the US and China) are getting smaller military budgets so they won't want to reinvent the wheel either.
However the result is clear... that of the existing or nearly developed technologies (FW, GigE, USB, ESata) they chose IEEE-1394 (Firewire)...
1553 never trickled down to commercial applications because nobody but the military and airplane makers needs a linear topology network architecture.
Note that 1394 was not chosen for avionics but to get data back from some sensor to the host computer. Fiber channel was choosen for avionics. Most of the network backbone in these fighters is fiber not copper.
The primary competitors for a next generation data bus were: ATM, FDDI and Fiber Channel. The secondary ones were FastE/GigE and Firewire.
Looks like to me that Fiber Channel won but FW is used where copper and non-deterministic behavior is okay.
So when the peak of modern technology (aerospace) chooses to depend on the FW standard for rapid, reliable transmission of data in life and death situations - I think that says that FW isn't dead.
That the military chooses fiberchannel or FW for fighter aircraft has nearly zero implications on what we should be using on the desktop.
The military is well known to adopt things from the commercial world that were dead quickly thereafter on the commercial market. You can pretty much depend on DoD to charge into widespread adoption of dead technology.
whether of not that will play out in our realm is certainly the question (as per your last sentence) but certainly it proves that FW is neither an irrelevant technology for reliable, rapid data transfer, nor one that is likely to disappear (given the lifetime of these jets).
We may in fact find that military development of IEEE-1394 leads to a faster FW spec (3200, 6400+)
Possible but it won't mean anything more to us than MIL-STD-1773 did (1553 on fiber).
The military often lags state of the art because their systems move glacially...
And they value certain things that we in the commercial sector don't much care about.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
As an aside, I've got a bud who flew B2s for years out of Missouri, and said it was odd knowing you could go to work in the morning and come back early the next day after striking at the other side of the planet. More like being a short-haul trucker than a global agent of mass destruction. Then again, as an ex-grunt, I could appreciate the ease of footgear maintenance over foxhole life.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
I may have to pop for a D90 body now -- the wife finds the D300 a bit large, and on long hikes, heavy to carry. (I usually respond by offering to trade her the Bogen tripod and 503 head.)
I'd wait. Nikon isn't going leave the 5D MkII unanswered for long unless you think it can be a firmware fix.
Nice video though.
That's for sure. $35M for a vehicle and no choice of interior colors, no 7.1 17-speaker surround sound; although they usually come with a hell of nav system.
As an aside, I've got a bud who flew B2s for years out of Missouri, and said it was odd knowing you could go to work in the morning and come back early the next day after striking at the other side of the planet. More like being a short-haul trucker than a global agent of mass destruction. Then again, as an ex-grunt, I could appreciate the ease of footgear maintenance over foxhole life.
Heh...if we wanted easy we'd all be wearing blue.
Folks think the military or NASA is so advanced. Until they do it for a living. It sure ain't like the movies.
You can pretty much depend on DoD to charge into widespread adoption of dead technology.
There's a method to that madness. The technology has likely already been thoroughly tested and proven incapable of the mission it's being sought for, and then when it fails, (DoD) can always use the "but you said to save money" line.
USB3
OK you obviously work for intel
so explain how USB 3 is going to magically replace
either GigE (for pure p2p)
or firewire (mobile p2p with decent power)....
especially with USB3's 900 mA (a measly 5 W) current power limitations
peripheral power might come down but that's balanced by increasing demands / speed / size
remember that
1. host contolled / star topology requires much more CPU power - and we're already struggling with heat problems in most laptops errr notebooks (Intel's latest air flow heat exchanger 'innovation' is testament to this)... we'll see if USB3 speeds on a star structure simply compounds the problem.
2. home networks (of which there are going to be a lot in the future) will collapse if you remove the host of a star based network - with tree based they keep on running... not such a problem for desktops (which remain in place) but for notebooks it creates limitations.
Admittedly No 2 can be solved by using GigE at home (no power limitations since power is readily available)
Again - i'm not arguing for no USB3 - i'd love to have one on the 2009 books for pure data transfer as an upgrade to the out-of-date USB2... but I just can't see how we're actually moving forward if all that extra CPU power we pay for each upgrade is simply spent on speeding up an increasing number of host controller commands.
Do you see USB3 giving us back TDM ?
Oh and agreed regarding some military technology not reaching consumers... but that's like saying "joe the plumber doesn't buy rocket launchers..."
What's the max for Firewire? I had thought it was at least twice that much.
Again - i'm not arguing for no USB3 - i'd love to have one on the 2009 books for pure data transfer as an upgrade to the out-of-date USB2... but I just can't see how we're actually moving forward if all that extra CPU power we pay for each upgrade is simply spent on speeding up an increasing number of host controller commands.
USB technology= Host Controlled
USB technology= more drain on CPU
USB technology= created by Intel
Intel= largest CPU global provider
I'm all for seeing USB improve but the hidden costs of USB are in the need to buy a beefier machine to handle what could be done by a smarter controller and as otwayross says lower power meaning two cables for many devices.
USB 3 devices will be limited to 5 watts?
What's the max for Firewire? I had thought it was at least twice that much.
yeah FW is 45 W (up to 30V and 1.5 A)
USB 3 is limited to 900mA (see here)and it really depends on the voltage
current USB = 5V max so if it's going to be backwards compatible...
Continuing bad press could possibly have an effect. Look what happened when Apple suddenly dropped the price on the iPhone. But it's likely the press and Mac web will forget about this soon, much like they did when the Air was introduced without Firewire.
I think that bad press, and bad PR generally, could outweigh any savings to Apple from omitting a Firewire port and/or Express slot. For instance, critics could quote this bit of dialog from the Get-A-Mac "Podium" episode (2007):
PC Guy: "If your printer isn't compatible with Vista, I say, 'Buy a new printer.' Ask not what Vista can do for you, ask what you can buy for Vista."
YouTube gives PO'd customers an outlet to greatly magnify the effect of their gripes, especially if the gripes are presented in a witty way, with good actors and top production values. Since so many talented audio / visual types are among those affected by Apple's bonehead move, they might well put together well-crafted episodes mockingly built on the Get A Mac campaign. They could become YouTube "hits" and inflict hundreds of millions of dollars of damage on Apple's carefully built image. Scripts for such a series practically write themselves. Here's one such:
Mac Guy [Wearing an old-style red fireman's helmet with long trailing back piece]: "I'm a Mac."
PC Guy: "And I'm a PC. Whatcha selling there?"
[The PC Guy is standing in front of a card table the Mac Guy has set up in his yard, where he is holding a yard sale. On the table is lots of audio visual equipment, plus a sign saying "Bought just last month: 80% off." (There's room for several additional signs, if you can think of good contents.)]
Mac Guy: [Enthusiastically describes several pieces of practically unused high-end audio/visual cameras, etc.]
PC Guy: "But why are you selling them, then?”
Mac Guy: "Well, I want a new MacBook--my old one is on its last legs--but the new one doesn't have a Firewire port, so I can't use my old equipment with it anymore."
PC Guy: "So you're going to have to buy a lot of new gear?"
Mac Guy: "If your gear isn't compatible with Apple, I say, 'Buy new gear.' Ask not what Apple can do for you, ask what you can buy for Apple."
PC Guy: "I see. [Said like a shrink.] And what's with the fireman's helmet?"
Mac Guy: "Well, it advertises that I'm offering fire-sale prices."
PC Guy: "Why's that?"
Mac Guy: "Well, because a lot of other folks have orphaned Firewire peripherals that they're getting rid of, prices have really tumbled, so I have to outrace them to the bottom. Pretty soon I won't be able to give this stuff away."
PC Guy: "I'll give you a dime on the dollar for the lot."
Mac Guy: "Done!"
PC Guy: [Winks to the camera.] "They'll work fine with MY laptop."
I have fragments of ideas for a couple of other episodes. One would involve the PC Guy attempting to intercede for his friend the Mac Guy by appealing to a crowned figure on a throne. This king is seen from behind, with the PC Guy facing him and the camera. The PC Guy points out how the king gave no warning of Firewire’s removal before the Mac Guy loaded up on his equipment, and how much it's cost him, and how the Mac Guy's is being taunted by his PC-using acquaintances. The king replies, "I banish you. I am the king." PC Guy has the last word, though: "I'm going to tell him that you're naked." (Pretty punchy, huh?)
A third episode has a bunch of Apple Fanboys approach the Mac Guy at his yard sale. They sneer at his outdated Firewire peripherals, tell Mac Guy he's a whiner, and berate him to cough up the cash to buy a MacBook Pro. One of them would repeat the line, "If your gear isn't compatible with Apple, I say, 'Buy new gear.' Ask not what Apple can do for you, ask what you can buy for Apple."
Additional episodes involving these Fanboys could easily be created, utilizing the sneering quotes that rabid Apple apologists have already posted on the Firewire topic. These would, if deftly done and hence popular on YouTube, create a new and wildly unpopular image of the typical Mac user. It would be sweet revenge for the Firewire-dependent "first wives" whom Apple has scorned.
Perhaps a thread could be set up on this site where ideas for more episodes of this nature could be tossed into the pot. (Even if they're never produced, they're fun to contemplate.) Perhaps this cloud on the horizon will concentrate Apple's mind. It should. Apple has enemies who would gleefully publicize such episodes. The Linux guys, for instance, would spread the word and write up episodes of their own.
USB technology= Host Controlled
USB technology= more drain on CPU
USB technology= created by Intel
Intel= largest CPU global provider
I'm all for seeing USB improve but the hidden costs of USB are in the need to buy a beefier machine to handle what could be done by a smarter controller and as otwayross says lower power meaning two cables for many devices.
Beefy machine? With a modern (Core 2 Duo) processor, a USB file transfer is going to be using less than half a percent of one core. We aren't using 200MHz P-IIs anymore.