I completely agree that Target Disk Mode is a tremendous advantage in Apple laptops, and I use it all the time, but I am not convinced that it is the only solution in the MB.
At least the lack of FW400 happened after Apple made accessing the HDD a simple task. While it was easy in the polycarb MBs, it's even easier in the [Al] MBs.
I'm glad it's easier but nothing is easier than not having to touch it at all.
David Pogue missed a great opportunity to put Steve Jobs to the sword and to tell us all about it.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
In 1999 Apple put an internal port on the PowerMac and then left it to die. There was obviously a reason for that port being there but it wasn't developed further. At the time Apple was not in a healthy financial situation but they still thought it was worth putting an extra port in there.
Fast forward to 2008 and we see that firewire most definitely has its uses (over the complete spectrum of users) and Apple is bursting at the seams with cash. Firewire could be taken much further as, finally, the thing firewire is really good at (audio/video transmission) will be a reality for common users in the very near future.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot. Perhaps 'rot' isn't the right word, Apple has thrown in the towel and left a lot of its own users in the lurge by giving firewire a lethal injection instead of letting it fade away (or better still, letting the market and users decide). And for what? A few dollars?
I'd love to see HANA finally get beyond the prototype stage and come to market but it looks like DLNA is getting out the gate and gaining traction first. The fact that Apple is not and has never been a member of HANA perhaps is more evidence that they're just not willing to develop it further.
For a long time I thought FW3200 would never materialise. Recently I had started to think differently (oh, no pun intended).
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
First off, let's clarify that the only FW being left off is FW400. FW800 still exists on the new MBPs.
Secondly, FW is not an ideal way "to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling". That would be Ethernet. Cabling is cheap and it's considerably faster than FW400 in sustained throughput.
Finally, eSATA is an after thought with is evident by the lack of power, so it's a non-starter as a replacement to FW or USB.
Quote:
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Apple did screw up, but not the removal of FW400 which is highly unused in favour of USB accessories, but the lack of foresight to use the same interface standard for FW400, FW800 and FW3200 for physical backwards compatibility.
I just don't get the rabid posts stating that Apple should support a dead-end interface standard for a very, very small segment of their MacBook userbase. In fact, it's an excellent reason to get rid of it on the machines that are least likely to be utilizing it.
Quote:
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
I'm certain there are considerably less percentage of FW400 ports than their are USB ports on computers.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot.[/quote]
FW400, yes; but that has been a long time coming. I have not seen any indication that Apple has removed any FW800 from their machines. If they were planning to kill FW altogether, would be so close to FW3200?
PS: Rot is not apropos, as that is what it was doing before. What Apple has done has finally unplugged FW400 from life support so it can finally rest in peace.
Secondly, FW is not an ideal way "to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling". That would be Ethernet. Cabling is cheap and it's considerably faster than FW400 in sustained throughput.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
Quote:
In a perfect world, Ethernet at 100 Mbps would seem to be able to handle up to 5 HD streams. This assumes the minimum HD resolution, no overhead due to the protocol, each video stream has dedicated bandwidth, and there is no congestion with other devices on the network.
However, Ethernet IP networks provide only a best-effort packet delivery service, which means there is no guarantee that the network will not discard, duplicate, delay or mis-order the packets. This poses a major dilemma for clock reconstruction in MPEG2 transport streams, which is crucial for synchronizing video to audio (lipsync), multi-room audio and similar applications.
Due to the time sensitive nature of streaming video, you have two basic possibilities to improve the Quality of Service QoS in an IP system to prevent interruptions to the video: 1) reduce congestion by either increasing bandwidth or reducing the traffic on the network; and 2) add additional buffering to each display device.
In an attempt to improve QoS, the 802.1Q specification was created to offer a third alternative. Using a Tag Protocol ID (TPID), the 802.1Q spec creates a packet prioritization giving time sensitive data a greater chance of getting to the destination in time.
Although this frees the time-sensitive data from regular traffic, congestion may continue to be an issue as more and more time-sensitive products become integrated into our homes. HD video must compete with other HD streams, IPTV, VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming systems for packet priority.
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
That sounds very dated. 100BASE-T and MPEG-2? Besides that, I just don't think suggesting that homes should be wired for FW is feasible at any level and have no issues with video streaming over the internet on a so internet connection, much less any issues with 1000BASE-T and 802.11g/n network streaming media. The apps buffer enough to handle everything fine. My parents still use the very first Linksys 802.11b router with their AppleTV to buy content from iTS and to stream from their wired iMac.
Apple did screw up, but not the removal of FW400 which is highly unused in favour of USB accessories, but the lack of foresight to use the same interface standard for FW400, FW800 and FW3200 for physical backwards compatibility.
i agree with most of what you're saying here although i would be careful arguing that because USB is used on most accessories, that it's all that's required on a MB.
as a lot of people have said before, there's not much area of overlap - although FW can do everything that USB can, due to the size of the port and the inflexibility of the cables most small, low CPU intensive peripherals are mostly USB
that's just the way it is and i don't see anyone feeling the need to argue FW has to prove its usefulness by doing these tasks
FW400 for a mouse is like delivering mail in a porsche... possible but why would you bother ?
(notice i said porsche and not ferrari - that would be FW3200 )
however there is a need for a more intelligent, powered type connection on a notebook which Apple 'forgot' to provide on their MBs... that is their oversight
let me put it this way:
- I for one wouldn't by a MB (or any computer) today that doesn't feature USB...
- but I wouldn't buy a notebook today that didn't feature another more intelligent connection as well (or minimum an expansion port so i could choose one)
while I agree that GigE is exactly what's required around the home (except for the lack of hot swap capability on some peripherals)
it's useless for mobile due to lack of power (ditto for ESata currently)
remembering that mobility is exactly why most purchase a notebook - and not a mac mini
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I just don't get the rabid posts stating that Apple should support a dead-end interface standard for a very, very small segment of their MacBook userbase. In fact, it's an excellent reason to get rid of it on the machines that are least likely to be utilizing it.
not so dead end... interestingly some peripheral manufacturers say that FW400 is all that's required at this stage
I tend to think it's a chicken / egg situation with peripheral makers loathe to uprate their equipment with FW800 ports until most suitable laptops feature them...
but the notebook makers doing likewise.
so it's ended with a stand-off and the FW progression has somewhat stagnated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'm certain there are considerably less percentage of FW400 ports than their are USB ports on computers.
FW400, yes; but that has been a long time coming. I have not seen any indication that Apple has removed any FW800 from their machines. If they were planning to kill FW altogether, would be so close to FW3200?
PS: Rot is not apropos, as that is what it was doing before. What Apple has done has finally unplugged FW400 from life support so it can finally rest in peace.
actually I think the current MBs are going to be the only things left to rot
because no matter from which point of view you look at the issue is that there is no powerful mobile connection on the MBs...
in a year or so when Apple comes out with a MB update (with whatever more powerful mobile connection Apple is supporting at the time),
no one will want one of the current machines simply because it only has (very) old technology on it
i hope u don't take offense if you've just bought a MB \
but i think the resale value will be fairly low within a year
particularly when the next ones come out with either FW800 /3200, USB3, powered ESata or powered FW over GigE
i think that's when people will realise:
- what an letdown this release was
- that the MB is essentially an overweight Air
- that there's more space inside a MB for another connection than they think
That sounds very dated. 100BASE-T and MPEG-2? Besides that, I just don't think suggesting that homes should be wired for FW is feasible at any level and have no issues with video streaming over the internet on a so internet connection, much less any issues with 1000BASE-T and 802.11g/n network streaming media. The apps buffer enough to handle everything fine. My parents still use the very first Linksys 802.11b router with their AppleTV to buy content from iTS and to stream from their wired iMac.
Remember that there are Blu-Ray discs on the market encoded with MPEG-2. High Definition has more to do with resolution than codecs.
100BASE-T was referenced as it was/is very common and very cheap. The proposal is not to wire houses with firewire cables but to use firewire over coaxial. Of course, there are other reasons firewire was finally chosen (among them things like copy protection).
I'm glad it's easier but nothing is easier than not having to touch it at all.
David Pogue missed a great opportunity to put Steve Jobs to the sword and to tell us all about it.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
In 1999 Apple put an internal port on the PowerMac and then left it to die. There was obviously a reason for that port being there but it wasn't developed further. At the time Apple was not in a healthy financial situation but they still thought it was worth putting an extra port in there.
Fast forward to 2008 and we see that firewire most definitely has its uses (over the complete spectrum of users) and Apple is bursting at the seams with cash. Firewire could be taken much further as, finally, the thing firewire is really good at (audio/video transmission) will be a reality for common users in the very near future.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot. Perhaps 'rot' isn't the right word, Apple has thrown in the towel and left a lot of its own users in the lurge by giving firewire a lethal injection instead of letting it fade away (or better still, letting the market and users decide). And for what? A few dollars?
I'd love to see HANA finally get beyond the prototype stage and come to market but it looks like DLNA is getting out the gate and gaining traction first. The fact that Apple is not and has never been a member of HANA perhaps is more evidence that they're just not willing to develop it further.
For a long time I thought FW3200 would never materialise. Recently I had started to think differently (oh, no pun intended).
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
Your knowledge of SATA is weak if you think the difference in speed isn't much, or important. SATA and ESATA are four times as fast as FW 800, as a bus. Why is that important? Because FW 800 only allows the fastest HDD's to run at about 60% of their speed, while SATA allows 100%. You can use port sharing with SATA to get to almost 375 MB/s on a raid. Not with FW 800, where port sharing (which is different in FW) only goes to about 80MBs.
What is wrong with ESATA so that "it shows"?
There are many more uses for storage than moving entertainment files around a network at home.
Got mass storage, SATA is much better. That's why it's taking over, not only internally, but externally as well.
FW is getting squeezed from the low end with USB, and from the high end from SATA. FW's niche is becoming smaller all the time.
While I've been saying that Apple jumped the gun here, the handwriting is on the wall. It's just a matter of time.
FW 3200 won't be here for a bit of time yet, and it's likely we'll see 1,600 first. Not much of an advantage.
While that's happening, there are a number of newer technologies that are coming out, as extensions of other current ones that will be better still.
FW will still have a niche in the audio and video markets?for a while. Those will continue to move away from it as well.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
That's a lot of nonsense!
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
Remember that there are Blu-Ray discs on the market encoded with MPEG-2. High Definition has more to do with resolution than codecs.
BD hasn't used MPEG-2 since the very beginning. It would be difficult to find one with MPEG-2 encoding, and all the re-releases of those disks have been redone in H.264.
Quote:
100BASE-T was referenced as it was/is very common and very cheap. The proposal is not to wire houses with firewire cables but to use firewire over coaxial. Of course, there are other reasons firewire was finally chosen (among them things like copy protection).
Gb Ethernet is pretty cheap these days, and outnumbers the 100MB ports out there.
Remember that all of these organizations have their own axes to grind. There are decisions being made that are less for technical reasons than for political ones.
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
That document is woefully out of date.
Off topic: Have you read anything about FW over Ethernet actually coming to fruition?
Your knowledge of SATA is weak if you think the difference in speed isn't much, or important. SATA and ESATA are four times as fast as FW 800, as a bus. Why is that important? Because FW 800 only allows the fastest HDD's to run at about 60% of their speed, while SATA allows 100%. You can use port sharing with SATA to get to almost 375 MB/s on a raid. Not with FW 800, where port sharing (which is different in FW) only goes to about 80MBs.
What makes you think that I think the speed difference isn't much? I said eSATA was faster, in fact I think Apple is treading the road it went down before supporting USB2.0. The only losers in that situation were mac users. I'd very much like to see eSATA on Macs. What I said was that for backups etc Firewire was fast enough.
Quote:
What is wrong with ESATA so that "it shows"?
Did I say anything was wrong with eSATA? No. I said it was an afterthought with regards to SATA and it shows. If it hadn't been an afterthought things would have been planned differently. Important things like cable length and bus power.
Quote:
There are many more uses for storage than moving entertainment files around a network at home.
I said in certain situations copying files around would be a waste of resources. Streaming is a better option for some media files. I never said there weren't other uses for storage. In fact I wasn't talking about storage.
Quote:
Got mass storage, SATA is much better. That's why it's taking over, not only internally, but externally as well
What makes you think that I think otherwise?
Quote:
FW is getting squeezed from the low end with USB, and from the high end from SATA. FW's niche is becoming smaller all the time.
SATA and Firewire are in different universes. Did you mean eSATA?
Quote:
While I've been saying that Apple jumped the gun here, the handwriting is on the wall. It's just a matter of time.
It seems many people agree on the first bit, myself included. I think the second bit is a harsh fact.
Quote:
FW 3200 won't be here for a bit of time yet, and it's likely we'll see 1,600 first. Not much of an advantage
Like I said I had my doubts at first but maybe it will be here before we think. I've been reading that TI is moving resources away from FW which is bad news but there are others bringing FW options to market.
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
That document is woefully out of date.
You say it's a lot of nonsense but three out of your four paragraphs fail to detail why. The one paragraph that might have something to do with the quote I posted is extremely vague. In those professional ethernet networks are they moving files around or streaming them?
Bandwidth and speed are important but there are other considerations that the quote specifically touched on. One thing is for sure, the more speed, space and bandwidth we have, the more someone finds a way to use it. Congestion will always be a problem to deal with.
What makes you think that I think the speed difference isn't much? I said eSATA was faster, in fact I think Apple is treading the road it went down before supporting USB2.0. The only losers in that situation were mac users. I'd very much like to see eSATA on Macs. What I said was that for backups etc Firewire was fast enough.
Ok:
"SATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? "
Quote:
Did I say anything was wrong with eSATA? No. I said it was an afterthought with regards to SATA and it shows. If it hadn't been an afterthought things would have been planned differently. Important things like cable length and bus power.
Your sentence said it all. Now your explanation shows that you don't understand technical limitations.
What makes you think that more "planning" would have allowed them to have a cable length over six feet for E-SATA? SATA has a max cable length of about 40".
As far as bus power goes, for most implementations, it isn't needed. but Power Over SATA is coming in 2009, as is, by the way, power over Ethernet.
Quote:
I said in certain situations copying files around would be a waste of resources. Streaming is a better option for some media files. I never said there weren't other uses for storage. In fact I wasn't talking about storage.
I can hardly find a worse way to move files around a network than FW. It simply isn't designed for it, and is much more overkill than is Ethernet, which is designed for that. The oft talked about FW over Ethernet is not a reality, and is not likely to become one, except for a few small, limited purposes.
Streaming is a waste of bandwidth. It's much easier to move the files. It takes seconds to move a GB's worth of a file, but streaming, because of the protocols needed, takes effectively more bandwidth.
Even for streaming these files around the network, GB Ethernet is better.
Quote:
What makes you think that I think otherwise?
We can go back to the quote of yours I listed above.
Quote:
SATA and Firewire are in different universes. Did you mean eSATA?
SATA and E-SATA are the same thing. The only difference is in the physical layer. E-SATA includes shielded cables, and a slightly different connector.
Quote:
It seems many people agree on the first bit, myself included. I think the second bit is a harsh fact.
Yes, we agree on this. The facts are something that's called reality. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Quote:
Like I said I had my doubts at first but maybe it will be here before we think. I've been reading that TI is moving resources away from FW which is bad news but there are others bringing FW options to market.
It will be here for a few specialized uses. And then it won't be here at all.
You say it's a lot of nonsense but three out of your four paragraphs fail to detail why. The one paragraph that might have something to do with the quote I posted is extremely vague. In those professional ethernet networks are they moving files around or streaming them?
They're doing both. I do both at home here with my GB network. It works very well.
Quote:
Bandwidth and speed are important but there are other considerations that the quote specifically touched on. One thing is for sure, the more speed, space and bandwidth we have, the more someone finds a way to use it. Congestion will always be a problem to deal with.
FW has congestion problems as does every other networking protocol. Bandwidth makes up for most of the problems.
Many networks are designed for one thing or another. They are not generalized networks. Home networks, for example, are usually very underutilized. GB Ethernet has a good 125 MB/s available to the users. That's way more than any possible usage on the network for most people. There are ways to double that bandwidth if required. Streaming a file that requires less than 10% of that bandwidth is not a problem at all, even with other use.
Many networks are designed for one thing or another. They are not generalized networks. Home networks, for example, are usually very underutilized. GB Ethernet has a good 125 MB/s available to the users. That's way more than any possible usage on the network for most people. There are ways to double that bandwidth if required. Streaming a file that requires less than 10% of that bandwidth is not a problem at all, even with other use.
I rented a house with three friends in college. We had a file server (like a NAS, but louder), on a gigabit network (practical maximum speed = 300Mb), and we had no problem streaming video to every computer in the house at the same time.
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
Pogue is one of a very small, select group of tech journalists (along with Mossberg and a couple of others) who seems to consistently get special or early access to new Apple products. I'm sure he didn't want to jeopardize that by getting into an argument with Steve, who's been known to be petty and retaliatory at times.
Still, I agree that he should've done a lot more that say he's "sad" about Apple's (rather premature) FW decision and more-or-less roll over for Jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Either we jump from FW800 to 3200 or we wait for USB3. Apple must know which road they've decided upon.
Hopefully, they do the sane thing and make a formal announcement at MWSF.
Amen to that. But since when has Apple ever consistently done the sane thing?
Comments
I completely agree that Target Disk Mode is a tremendous advantage in Apple laptops, and I use it all the time, but I am not convinced that it is the only solution in the MB.
At least the lack of FW400 happened after Apple made accessing the HDD a simple task. While it was easy in the polycarb MBs, it's even easier in the [Al] MBs.
David Pogue missed a great opportunity to put Steve Jobs to the sword and to tell us all about it.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
In 1999 Apple put an internal port on the PowerMac and then left it to die. There was obviously a reason for that port being there but it wasn't developed further. At the time Apple was not in a healthy financial situation but they still thought it was worth putting an extra port in there.
Fast forward to 2008 and we see that firewire most definitely has its uses (over the complete spectrum of users) and Apple is bursting at the seams with cash. Firewire could be taken much further as, finally, the thing firewire is really good at (audio/video transmission) will be a reality for common users in the very near future.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot. Perhaps 'rot' isn't the right word, Apple has thrown in the towel and left a lot of its own users in the lurge by giving firewire a lethal injection instead of letting it fade away (or better still, letting the market and users decide). And for what? A few dollars?
I'd love to see HANA finally get beyond the prototype stage and come to market but it looks like DLNA is getting out the gate and gaining traction first. The fact that Apple is not and has never been a member of HANA perhaps is more evidence that they're just not willing to develop it further.
For a long time I thought FW3200 would never materialise. Recently I had started to think differently (oh, no pun intended).
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
First off, let's clarify that the only FW being left off is FW400. FW800 still exists on the new MBPs.
Secondly, FW is not an ideal way "to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling". That would be Ethernet. Cabling is cheap and it's considerably faster than FW400 in sustained throughput.
Finally, eSATA is an after thought with is evident by the lack of power, so it's a non-starter as a replacement to FW or USB.
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Apple did screw up, but not the removal of FW400 which is highly unused in favour of USB accessories, but the lack of foresight to use the same interface standard for FW400, FW800 and FW3200 for physical backwards compatibility.
I just don't get the rabid posts stating that Apple should support a dead-end interface standard for a very, very small segment of their MacBook userbase. In fact, it's an excellent reason to get rid of it on the machines that are least likely to be utilizing it.
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
I'm certain there are considerably less percentage of FW400 ports than their are USB ports on computers.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot.[/quote]
FW400, yes; but that has been a long time coming. I have not seen any indication that Apple has removed any FW800 from their machines. If they were planning to kill FW altogether, would be so close to FW3200?
PS: Rot is not apropos, as that is what it was doing before. What Apple has done has finally unplugged FW400 from life support so it can finally rest in peace.
Secondly, FW is not an ideal way "to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling". That would be Ethernet. Cabling is cheap and it's considerably faster than FW400 in sustained throughput.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
In a perfect world, Ethernet at 100 Mbps would seem to be able to handle up to 5 HD streams. This assumes the minimum HD resolution, no overhead due to the protocol, each video stream has dedicated bandwidth, and there is no congestion with other devices on the network.
However, Ethernet IP networks provide only a best-effort packet delivery service, which means there is no guarantee that the network will not discard, duplicate, delay or mis-order the packets. This poses a major dilemma for clock reconstruction in MPEG2 transport streams, which is crucial for synchronizing video to audio (lipsync), multi-room audio and similar applications.
Due to the time sensitive nature of streaming video, you have two basic possibilities to improve the Quality of Service QoS in an IP system to prevent interruptions to the video: 1) reduce congestion by either increasing bandwidth or reducing the traffic on the network; and 2) add additional buffering to each display device.
In an attempt to improve QoS, the 802.1Q specification was created to offer a third alternative. Using a Tag Protocol ID (TPID), the 802.1Q spec creates a packet prioritization giving time sensitive data a greater chance of getting to the destination in time.
Although this frees the time-sensitive data from regular traffic, congestion may continue to be an issue as more and more time-sensitive products become integrated into our homes. HD video must compete with other HD streams, IPTV, VoIP, video conferencing, and gaming systems for packet priority.
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
That sounds very dated. 100BASE-T and MPEG-2? Besides that, I just don't think suggesting that homes should be wired for FW is feasible at any level and have no issues with video streaming over the internet on a so internet connection, much less any issues with 1000BASE-T and 802.11g/n network streaming media. The apps buffer enough to handle everything fine. My parents still use the very first Linksys 802.11b router with their AppleTV to buy content from iTS and to stream from their wired iMac.
Apple did screw up, but not the removal of FW400 which is highly unused in favour of USB accessories, but the lack of foresight to use the same interface standard for FW400, FW800 and FW3200 for physical backwards compatibility.
i agree with most of what you're saying here although i would be careful arguing that because USB is used on most accessories, that it's all that's required on a MB.
as a lot of people have said before, there's not much area of overlap - although FW can do everything that USB can, due to the size of the port and the inflexibility of the cables most small, low CPU intensive peripherals are mostly USB
that's just the way it is and i don't see anyone feeling the need to argue FW has to prove its usefulness by doing these tasks
FW400 for a mouse is like delivering mail in a porsche... possible but why would you bother ?
(notice i said porsche and not ferrari - that would be FW3200
however there is a need for a more intelligent, powered type connection on a notebook which Apple 'forgot' to provide on their MBs... that is their oversight
let me put it this way:
- I for one wouldn't by a MB (or any computer) today that doesn't feature USB...
- but I wouldn't buy a notebook today that didn't feature another more intelligent connection as well (or minimum an expansion port so i could choose one)
while I agree that GigE is exactly what's required around the home (except for the lack of hot swap capability on some peripherals)
it's useless for mobile due to lack of power (ditto for ESata currently)
remembering that mobility is exactly why most purchase a notebook - and not a mac mini
I just don't get the rabid posts stating that Apple should support a dead-end interface standard for a very, very small segment of their MacBook userbase. In fact, it's an excellent reason to get rid of it on the machines that are least likely to be utilizing it.
not so dead end... interestingly some peripheral manufacturers say that FW400 is all that's required at this stage
I tend to think it's a chicken / egg situation with peripheral makers loathe to uprate their equipment with FW800 ports until most suitable laptops feature them...
but the notebook makers doing likewise.
so it's ended with a stand-off and the FW progression has somewhat stagnated.
I'm certain there are considerably less percentage of FW400 ports than their are USB ports on computers.
FW400, yes; but that has been a long time coming. I have not seen any indication that Apple has removed any FW800 from their machines. If they were planning to kill FW altogether, would be so close to FW3200?
PS: Rot is not apropos, as that is what it was doing before. What Apple has done has finally unplugged FW400 from life support so it can finally rest in peace.
actually I think the current MBs are going to be the only things left to rot
because no matter from which point of view you look at the issue is that there is no powerful mobile connection on the MBs...
in a year or so when Apple comes out with a MB update (with whatever more powerful mobile connection Apple is supporting at the time),
no one will want one of the current machines simply because it only has (very) old technology on it
i hope u don't take offense if you've just bought a MB
but i think the resale value will be fairly low within a year
particularly when the next ones come out with either FW800 /3200, USB3, powered ESata or powered FW over GigE
i think that's when people will realise:
- what an letdown this release was
- that the MB is essentially an overweight Air
- that there's more space inside a MB for another connection than they think
That sounds very dated. 100BASE-T and MPEG-2? Besides that, I just don't think suggesting that homes should be wired for FW is feasible at any level and have no issues with video streaming over the internet on a so internet connection, much less any issues with 1000BASE-T and 802.11g/n network streaming media. The apps buffer enough to handle everything fine. My parents still use the very first Linksys 802.11b router with their AppleTV to buy content from iTS and to stream from their wired iMac.
Remember that there are Blu-Ray discs on the market encoded with MPEG-2. High Definition has more to do with resolution than codecs.
100BASE-T was referenced as it was/is very common and very cheap. The proposal is not to wire houses with firewire cables but to use firewire over coaxial. Of course, there are other reasons firewire was finally chosen (among them things like copy protection).
I'm glad it's easier but nothing is easier than not having to touch it at all.
David Pogue missed a great opportunity to put Steve Jobs to the sword and to tell us all about it.
There is nothing on the market that tops Firewire as a technology. Firewire has a roadmap and as a founding creator of the technology I don't think Apple should be abandoning it. USB3.0 might look good on paper but it's not here now and will have to mature.
eSATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? For many tasks there comes a time when fast is fast enough. For backups and file transfer Firewire is fast enough. eSATA was an afterthought to SATA and it shows.
However, we know that in the very near future copying data will be a waste of resources for people with networked entertainment centres.
People will be looking at ways to stream content to devices around the home over cheap cabling or wirelessly instead of copying large files all over the place and have their output equipment understand it natively.
Firewire has all of the bases covered as far as I can tell.
All new technology is a chicken and egg situation so someone has to move first to get the ball rolling. Apple really screwed up on firewire by leaving it off the first iMacs and then on licensing. However, it stuck it out and started to put ports on the market and the market (and users) responded.
It really doesn't matter that there are more USB devices on the market as Firewire is the better option NOW for many tasks. And the good news is that, mostly speaking, firewire equipped devices are just a little more expensive than their USB counterparts. Choice is good. You might sometimes have to pay a little more for firewire but it may prove to be well worth it in the end.
Another area where Apple screwed up was finding an application that took advantage of the technology. The first one that really shone came far too late and was the iPod. Yes they did the right thing in moving to USB2.0 because at the time there were less firewire ports worldwide.
In 1999 Apple put an internal port on the PowerMac and then left it to die. There was obviously a reason for that port being there but it wasn't developed further. At the time Apple was not in a healthy financial situation but they still thought it was worth putting an extra port in there.
Fast forward to 2008 and we see that firewire most definitely has its uses (over the complete spectrum of users) and Apple is bursting at the seams with cash. Firewire could be taken much further as, finally, the thing firewire is really good at (audio/video transmission) will be a reality for common users in the very near future.
You would think that Apple would not only be anxious to put firewire ports on all its macs but also to be designing products to take advantage of that situation. Instead, all indications point to firewire being left to rot. Perhaps 'rot' isn't the right word, Apple has thrown in the towel and left a lot of its own users in the lurge by giving firewire a lethal injection instead of letting it fade away (or better still, letting the market and users decide). And for what? A few dollars?
I'd love to see HANA finally get beyond the prototype stage and come to market but it looks like DLNA is getting out the gate and gaining traction first. The fact that Apple is not and has never been a member of HANA perhaps is more evidence that they're just not willing to develop it further.
For a long time I thought FW3200 would never materialise. Recently I had started to think differently (oh, no pun intended).
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
Your knowledge of SATA is weak if you think the difference in speed isn't much, or important. SATA and ESATA are four times as fast as FW 800, as a bus. Why is that important? Because FW 800 only allows the fastest HDD's to run at about 60% of their speed, while SATA allows 100%. You can use port sharing with SATA to get to almost 375 MB/s on a raid. Not with FW 800, where port sharing (which is different in FW) only goes to about 80MBs.
What is wrong with ESATA so that "it shows"?
There are many more uses for storage than moving entertainment files around a network at home.
Got mass storage, SATA is much better. That's why it's taking over, not only internally, but externally as well.
FW is getting squeezed from the low end with USB, and from the high end from SATA. FW's niche is becoming smaller all the time.
While I've been saying that Apple jumped the gun here, the handwriting is on the wall. It's just a matter of time.
FW 3200 won't be here for a bit of time yet, and it's likely we'll see 1,600 first. Not much of an advantage.
While that's happening, there are a number of newer technologies that are coming out, as extensions of other current ones that will be better still.
FW will still have a niche in the audio and video markets?for a while. Those will continue to move away from it as well.
This is what HANA had to say on why they rejected ethernet (part of a document on why they opted for Firewire):
I can't provide a link as that snippet is from a document I have locally but it was and probably still is online. I just don't have the link at the moment.
That's a lot of nonsense!
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
That document is woefully out of date.
Remember that there are Blu-Ray discs on the market encoded with MPEG-2. High Definition has more to do with resolution than codecs.
BD hasn't used MPEG-2 since the very beginning. It would be difficult to find one with MPEG-2 encoding, and all the re-releases of those disks have been redone in H.264.
100BASE-T was referenced as it was/is very common and very cheap. The proposal is not to wire houses with firewire cables but to use firewire over coaxial. Of course, there are other reasons firewire was finally chosen (among them things like copy protection).
Gb Ethernet is pretty cheap these days, and outnumbers the 100MB ports out there.
Remember that all of these organizations have their own axes to grind. There are decisions being made that are less for technical reasons than for political ones.
That's a lot of nonsense!
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
That document is woefully out of date.
Off topic: Have you read anything about FW over Ethernet actually coming to fruition?
Off topic: Have you read anything about FW over Ethernet actually coming to fruition?
It doesn't look like there is much work being done with it. Some experimental work, but I haven't seen anything really useful.
Interesting:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp10.html
Remember that the Macbook never had FW800, only 400.
Your knowledge of SATA is weak if you think the difference in speed isn't much, or important. SATA and ESATA are four times as fast as FW 800, as a bus. Why is that important? Because FW 800 only allows the fastest HDD's to run at about 60% of their speed, while SATA allows 100%. You can use port sharing with SATA to get to almost 375 MB/s on a raid. Not with FW 800, where port sharing (which is different in FW) only goes to about 80MBs.
What makes you think that I think the speed difference isn't much? I said eSATA was faster, in fact I think Apple is treading the road it went down before supporting USB2.0. The only losers in that situation were mac users. I'd very much like to see eSATA on Macs. What I said was that for backups etc Firewire was fast enough.
What is wrong with ESATA so that "it shows"?
Did I say anything was wrong with eSATA? No. I said it was an afterthought with regards to SATA and it shows. If it hadn't been an afterthought things would have been planned differently. Important things like cable length and bus power.
There are many more uses for storage than moving entertainment files around a network at home.
I said in certain situations copying files around would be a waste of resources. Streaming is a better option for some media files. I never said there weren't other uses for storage. In fact I wasn't talking about storage.
Got mass storage, SATA is much better. That's why it's taking over, not only internally, but externally as well
What makes you think that I think otherwise?
FW is getting squeezed from the low end with USB, and from the high end from SATA. FW's niche is becoming smaller all the time.
SATA and Firewire are in different universes. Did you mean eSATA?
While I've been saying that Apple jumped the gun here, the handwriting is on the wall. It's just a matter of time.
It seems many people agree on the first bit, myself included. I think the second bit is a harsh fact.
FW 3200 won't be here for a bit of time yet, and it's likely we'll see 1,600 first. Not much of an advantage
Like I said I had my doubts at first but maybe it will be here before we think. I've been reading that TI is moving resources away from FW which is bad news but there are others bringing FW options to market.
That's a lot of nonsense!
100MB Ethernet has rapidly become obsolete in favor of GB Ethernet, which Apple has been supplying in all their machines for seven years now.
10 GB Ethernet has arrived, and is at the stage GB Ethernet was at the same point after its introduction, which is to say, expensive, but dropping in price.
Video is moved around on Ethernet networks sucessfully in professional settings every day, and has been for years.
That document is woefully out of date.
You say it's a lot of nonsense but three out of your four paragraphs fail to detail why. The one paragraph that might have something to do with the quote I posted is extremely vague. In those professional ethernet networks are they moving files around or streaming them?
Bandwidth and speed are important but there are other considerations that the quote specifically touched on. One thing is for sure, the more speed, space and bandwidth we have, the more someone finds a way to use it. Congestion will always be a problem to deal with.
What makes you think that I think the speed difference isn't much? I said eSATA was faster, in fact I think Apple is treading the road it went down before supporting USB2.0. The only losers in that situation were mac users. I'd very much like to see eSATA on Macs. What I said was that for backups etc Firewire was fast enough.
Ok:
"SATA is faster but in real terms do we really notice the difference when pitted against FW800? "
Did I say anything was wrong with eSATA? No. I said it was an afterthought with regards to SATA and it shows. If it hadn't been an afterthought things would have been planned differently. Important things like cable length and bus power.
Your sentence said it all. Now your explanation shows that you don't understand technical limitations.
What makes you think that more "planning" would have allowed them to have a cable length over six feet for E-SATA? SATA has a max cable length of about 40".
As far as bus power goes, for most implementations, it isn't needed. but Power Over SATA is coming in 2009, as is, by the way, power over Ethernet.
I said in certain situations copying files around would be a waste of resources. Streaming is a better option for some media files. I never said there weren't other uses for storage. In fact I wasn't talking about storage.
I can hardly find a worse way to move files around a network than FW. It simply isn't designed for it, and is much more overkill than is Ethernet, which is designed for that. The oft talked about FW over Ethernet is not a reality, and is not likely to become one, except for a few small, limited purposes.
Streaming is a waste of bandwidth. It's much easier to move the files. It takes seconds to move a GB's worth of a file, but streaming, because of the protocols needed, takes effectively more bandwidth.
Even for streaming these files around the network, GB Ethernet is better.
What makes you think that I think otherwise?
We can go back to the quote of yours I listed above.
SATA and Firewire are in different universes. Did you mean eSATA?
SATA and E-SATA are the same thing. The only difference is in the physical layer. E-SATA includes shielded cables, and a slightly different connector.
It seems many people agree on the first bit, myself included. I think the second bit is a harsh fact.
Yes, we agree on this. The facts are something that's called reality. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Like I said I had my doubts at first but maybe it will be here before we think. I've been reading that TI is moving resources away from FW which is bad news but there are others bringing FW options to market.
It will be here for a few specialized uses. And then it won't be here at all.
You say it's a lot of nonsense but three out of your four paragraphs fail to detail why. The one paragraph that might have something to do with the quote I posted is extremely vague. In those professional ethernet networks are they moving files around or streaming them?
They're doing both. I do both at home here with my GB network. It works very well.
Bandwidth and speed are important but there are other considerations that the quote specifically touched on. One thing is for sure, the more speed, space and bandwidth we have, the more someone finds a way to use it. Congestion will always be a problem to deal with.
FW has congestion problems as does every other networking protocol. Bandwidth makes up for most of the problems.
Many networks are designed for one thing or another. They are not generalized networks. Home networks, for example, are usually very underutilized. GB Ethernet has a good 125 MB/s available to the users. That's way more than any possible usage on the network for most people. There are ways to double that bandwidth if required. Streaming a file that requires less than 10% of that bandwidth is not a problem at all, even with other use.
FW 3200 won't be here for a bit of time yet, and it's likely we'll see 1,600 first. Not much of an advantage.
There is no point to implementing FW1600 today. None.
Either we jump from FW800 to 3200 or we wait for USB3. Apple must know which road they've decided upon.
Hopefully, they do the sane thing and make a formal announcement at MWSF.
Many networks are designed for one thing or another. They are not generalized networks. Home networks, for example, are usually very underutilized. GB Ethernet has a good 125 MB/s available to the users. That's way more than any possible usage on the network for most people. There are ways to double that bandwidth if required. Streaming a file that requires less than 10% of that bandwidth is not a problem at all, even with other use.
I rented a house with three friends in college. We had a file server (like a NAS, but louder), on a gigabit network (practical maximum speed = 300Mb), and we had no problem streaming video to every computer in the house at the same time.
I can't help but think that David Pogue let us down to a degree by not putting forward a strong enough case or, if he did, not putting it into print. I can think of few people with his credibility in the macworld better postioned to get into the nitty gritty of what has really happened with this issue.
Pogue is one of a very small, select group of tech journalists (along with Mossberg and a couple of others) who seems to consistently get special or early access to new Apple products. I'm sure he didn't want to jeopardize that by getting into an argument with Steve, who's been known to be petty and retaliatory at times.
Still, I agree that he should've done a lot more that say he's "sad" about Apple's (rather premature) FW decision and more-or-less roll over for Jobs.
Either we jump from FW800 to 3200 or we wait for USB3. Apple must know which road they've decided upon.
Hopefully, they do the sane thing and make a formal announcement at MWSF.
Amen to that. But since when has Apple ever consistently done the sane thing?
...