I think one argument that isn't getting enough of a hearing in this situation isn't so much the merits of FireWire vs USB 2/3 but the fact that the new MacBook computers only have two multi-purpose I/O ports now as oppose to the 3 that are available on the old MacBook computers. If I have a printer, iPod and a backup/data HD I'm now one port short. I know hubs are cheap but still it's a level of complexity I could have avoided with the previous generation of computer.
OK, continue on with the USB vs FireWire deathmatch! May the best eSATA win!
LOL.
I brought up this issue a few pages back but I think the post got deleted in the end. It's a big issue.
Also having FW available allowed users to balance things out a little. I've never been happy with sticking everything on USB via hubs.My experience has not been good. Freedom of choice (on ports) would be nice.
Pros are more likely to use FireWire while the vast majority of MacBook consumers have never used it or even heard of it. Apple did the same thing on both machines, it removed FW400. I don't think FW is dying, but I do think that FW400 is a dead-end port interface. It's too bad that Apple didn't make FW800 use the same port interface as FW400, like USB has down with all 3 iterations.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
No I just said that as a technology, nothing out there tops it (even though eSATA for example, may be faster)
I would have agreed ten years ago, but not today.
Quote:
Computers. Most of the ones I see (PCs included). Peripherals. Within two metres of where I am now I have a firewire printer, scanner, three external hard drives, a small RAID unit and two external DVD writers.
I don't think you understood the question. This was the dialog, starting with your statement, and then my question:
Quote:
Quote:
I must be getting ahead of myself. I don't know why but I thought power over ethernet already existed.
How many computers or peripherals have you seen with it?
Are you saying that all of your computers and devices have Power Over Ethernet?
You answered a question about that, with a statement about FW.
Quote:
No. If I plan on using external devices for more than a short period of time I would be using a mains connection for the laptop. If there were no mains connection I would use an extra battery. Either way, having bus power means less bricks.
Heh! Your statement coincides with mine, though you don't realize it.
Same number of bricks.
Quote:
Could you please expand on this and give some technical reasons as, AFAIW, bus timing is handled in the chipset where peripheral manufacturers can largely forget about that kind of thing.
You don't really want technical reason, do you? There are multi page papers that would do that. This isn't the place for that. If you don't know that adding a cpu to a device allows the software, in firmware to do this, then you won't understand the more technical explanations.
Quote:
Can you provide documentary evidence of this or a comment from an engineer somewhere that back that statement up.
I'll provide a few links to more current problems with compatibility problems here and there. Finding 15 year old articles isn't easy.
One problem has always been the poor physical layer specs. Some of these problems show that.
Read down to the last two sections to see what I'm talking about with command structures and such (meaning protocols). Too much was left in the various manufacturers hands. It took years until many finally agreed on what to do.
Again, this is not supposed to happen, but the lax standards do allow it.
While I can't find early technical articles now, there are enough articles in Google about FW compatibility problems to show it's real.
Quote:
I was around then and using firewire but you are falling into the same trap again. Native FW on hard drive was important for computer users (of course with hard disks). FW caters to far more than hard disks.
no trap. just a fact. There are over 300 million computers sold a year now, and that number is continually goig up. If FW drives appeared, and were sucessful, most of those computers would now have FW bisses.
Because it failed, they don't. Putting in FW is not worth it for most companies, so they don't. It's limited the use of FW severely, and has lead to the current situation.
Do you really think that if FW dries were here, and FW was at 3,200, Apple would have removed the ports?
No.
Quote:
When USB camcorders appeared it was for still photography transfer. When USB started to handle video transfer it required special drivers from the manufacturer. Then, if I'm not mistaken, USB was updated to handle video transfer. I'm speaking from memory and have never used a USB camcorder though.
It doesn't matter what the original reason was. What does matter is what it's evolved to. Tape will be obsolete shortly in camcorders. In tapeless camcorders, FW serves no purpose. Indeed, it's a waste of time.
Quote:
It's most definitely not incorrect or irrelevant. If your A/V devices are not storing content locally I deduce that you now agree with me on the streaming point I raised. And you are incorrect. From a technology perspective a guarantee of content delivery on time is an absolute number one priority in the situations I have put forward. You cannot say 'I have enough speed and bandwidth so things should work'. This stuff cannot be left to chance. Sooner or later your network is going to get congested.
I'm not saying that streaming isn't done on networks, just that your idea of it is irrelevant. I'm not the only one here to point out that FW isn't needed for that.
FW gets just as conjected as dows any other network. I dn't understand your insistance that it won't. FW was NOT designed for network use. It is inferior for that use. Attempts have been made to use it that way for several years. I even have some of the software and devices that were being tested for that purpose. But it wasn't a good idea. It's expensive, as FW was never intended for stretches of more than 15 feet per cable without repeaters, and other hardware.
The networking protocols are not part of the standards, and have been written by several companies in non compatible ways. None have succeeded in becoming used.
Can you point to any successful FW networking companies? I can't. Only a couple that have played around with it.
Ethernet, and other networking systems don't leave moving files around the network to chance. I can't imagine why you would think they do.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
Depending on how Apple markets FW in the future and the success of other technologies, it may not be needed by almost all professionals on the MBP. But that isn't what is being discussed here.
It's clear that some feel that FW400 is needed on the MB. The problem is that those needs aren't shared with the vast majority of people buying a MB. It's not an all or nothing situation, otherwise it would have been removed from the MBP, too. It's about what is the best option for Apple for the majority of their MB consumer demographic.
From the Apple/Users/Firewire perspective I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Apple has goofed IMO and although it's unlikely they'll change their stance and put FW back on the MacBook, I won't be buying one without FW.
I had to take the MacBook off my Christmas list and if, when I finally need to upgrade, there is no portable mac in my price range, it will be a hackintosh for me. I sent feedback to Apple but I doubt anything will be done to change things.
When we come back to this discussion a year or so, we will all be much closer on it than we are now.
I brought up this issue a few pages back but I think the post got deleted in the end. It's a big issue.
Also having FW available allowed users to balance things out a little. I've never been happy with sticking everything on USB via hubs.My experience has not been good. Freedom of choice (on ports) would be nice.
Limited ports on Macs has always been a fact of life, except on the towers, and even there, we sometimes complain.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
It isn't that is isn't necessary. It's that it isn't AS necessary as it used to be.
So, yes, pros are more likely to want it than consumers. Most audio devices use USB 2. A few use FW. The main difference is bandwidth.
When we look at the MOTO II vs the III, we see the difference is mostly bandwidth between the interfaces. Otherwise, the units work pretty much the same, other than the features added in the upgrade.
Most consumers devices that had FW are moving to USB 2. That's a simple fact.
You can get external drives with USB 2 interfaces (the most common), USB 2 + FW 400 (number two), USB 2, E-SATA (number three),USB 2, FW 400, and E-SATA) number four), and E-SATA (number five). Rarely will you still see drives with just FW these days.
But that doesn't tell us everything. While E-SATA is moving up fast, the USB FW models are shrinking in the marketspace.
Most new camcorders, once the exclusive user of FW, use USB 2.
Even Apple stopped iPods from using FW years ago. Certainly one of the biggest consumer FW product areas.
All I can advise people to do, for their own comfort in the future, is to buy a device based on what it does for them, and in the case of two competing devices that are about equal, buy the USB 2 equipped one.
I don't know how to put this without repeating myself. HANA needs guaranteed QoS.
No. HANA is pushing a technological solution and saying everything else is bad. The need is to distribute HD. How you do so varies.
Quote:
Why don't you just say 'Gigabit ethernet guarantees real-time HD content delivery without drops'? Why hedge your words with 'more than capable'. If current ethernet standards and equipment can do what HANA needs, just say so.
Since when is "more than capable" a hedge. A hedge is "GigE should be able to deliver HD without drops".
Quote:
The fact that you, your brother or your best friend has a full blown computer with ample resources outputting content to a HD TV panel over Gigabit ethernet does not make it the solution to the issues that have been put here.
Mmmmkay. Just because it's been done is not proof that it can be done...
But hey, just because companies are building Media Centers, Media Center Extenders and GigE Video Routers doesn't mean HD over IP has any future path...it has to be FW since only it has QoS.
Except that there are layer 2 and layer 3 QoS standards for ethernet. 802.1P/Q and ToS/Diff. Draft N devices implement 802.11e for wireless and WMM.
Yea and verily these devices exist. While QOS tags have been iffy due to consumer and legacy devices not understanding 802.1p QoS tags (and doing odd things) that situation gets better every year as older switches get replaced with current models that implement QoS.
So...you don't need a "full blown computer" as much as an up to date switch and NICs on your settop box.
Quote:
I thought the white paper listed here was an interesting read. Everybody is free to make their own conclusions.
Again, a white paper written by a TI Firewire sales guy. Yes, draw your own conclusion.
Quote:
I brought up the subject of HANA as an example because somebody said that firewire was not good (or a good option - I can't remember now) for moving/streaming A/V content. It was only an example to support my post.
A singular example thus far. No one said that Firewire was "not good" just that the consumer market has opted to choose its competitors (aka it'd dead jim).
Quote:
I'm not a proponent of HANA. I don't even know if it will get off the ground and I said so right from the start. However, from a technological viewpoint it does raise some issues for the people that say FW now has no reason to exist.
I still say FW has no single competitor out there that is better for a broad spectrum of uses. I haven't seen anything here to make me think otherwise.
Except that a single competitor is not a requirement to deliver HD, connect to drives, etc. USB, ethernet and hdmi has beaten FW in the market.
You may not be a "proponent" of HANA but you sure take thier word for why FW is great and everything else suxxors.
Quote:
That white paper raised an interesting point on the cost of silicon for USB3.0. If that proved to be correct Apple may be missing a good opportunity to really push newer FW versions. Not that it matters much now as I think Apple already considers FW as legacy.
Yah...that translates into "You should by TI silicon and not Intel silicon". Except that folks will need to have USB3 silicon in their box anyway...
While we're talking about standards and obsolescence, we might make a short digression into the chips Apple is about to move to, Nehalem, or i7, as Intel is calling it.
That chip and chipset no longer supports (for PC users as well as Mac users), the PS/2 connector, (E)IDE parallel drives, parallel ports of any kind, serial ports other than SATA and USB, etc. I'm not sure yet, but I don't think they support PCI either, for a secondary bus.
People will have to either get rid of their current devices, or, if they have a computer that will allow it (as more PC's don't), get cards that support these shortly obsolete standards.
Again, a white paper written by a TI Firewire sales guy. Yes, draw your own conclusion.
i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you for proof on that "written by a TI FIrewire sales guy" comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yah...that translates into "You should by TI silicon and not Intel silicon". Except that folks will need to have USB3 silicon in their box anyway...
Yah... it makes a big difference to the consumer whether they pay for twice as much silicon in an overheating notebook that has non-proven speed or the same amount in intelligent peripherals
I just wonder, perhaps USB3 will claim the 4.8 Gbps and achieve a fraction of that..
no. definitely not. we should totally assume that USB3 will definitely have 4.8 Gbps
just like USB2 totally hits 480 Mbps today \
no even better.
since we all know that USB3 will need more silicon just to get close to the claimed speeds we should just assume that the marketing guys will not run the show
and that notebook makers won't just stick USB3 ports on their machines without sufficient silicon to get the speed... no they'd never do that...
i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you for proof on that "written by a TI FIrewire sales guy" comment
Yah... it makes a big difference to the consumer whether they pay for twice as much silicon in an overheating notebook that has non-proven speed or the same amount in intelligent peripherals
I just wonder, perhaps USB3 will claim the 4.8 Gbps and achieve a fraction of that..
no. definitely not. we should totally assume that USB3 will definitely have 4.8 Gbps
just like USB2 totally hits 480 Mbps today \
no even better.
since we all know that USB3 will need more silicon just to get close to the claimed speeds we should just assume that the marketing guys will not run the show
and that notebook makers won't just stick USB3 ports on their machines without sufficient silicon to get the speed... no they'd never do that...
No bus ever delivers 100% of its claimed bandwidth. It also depends on the purpose it's being used for.
For example, FW 400 delivers, at most about 42MB/s. USB 2 delivers about 36MB/s.
USB 3 at 4.8 Gbs will likely deliver about two thirds that in practice, with it's improvements. FW 3.2 Gb/s will likely deliver about 85%.
No major difference in practice, though USB 3 will likely be a bit better.
No. HANA is pushing a technological solution and saying everything else is bad. The need is to distribute HD. How you do so varies.
HANA simply offered information on why it chose firewire. It's not saying everything else is bad at all. Just why other technologies got ruled out.
Quote:
Since when is "more than capable" a hedge. A hedge is "GigE should be able to deliver HD without drops".
It's a hedge because in my book 'more than capable' means 'has more than enough capacity to do something'. What is doesn't mean is that in spite of its capacity to do something that it actually will do it when required.
Quote:
Mmmmkay. Just because it's been done is not proof that it can be done...
More hedging. Try changing 'can' for 'will' in that line and we'll be getting somewhere.
Quote:
But hey, just because companies are building Media Centers, Media Center Extenders and GigE Video Routers doesn't mean HD over IP has any future path...it has to be FW since only it has QoS.
Not at all. However, for HANA that situation is what they want to avoid. Imagine this situation: You are watching a film in your living room. You decide to finish watching it in your bedroom. How would you accomplish this in the scenario you just outlined?
Quote:
Except that there are layer 2 and layer 3 QoS standards for ethernet. 802.1P/Q and ToS/Diff. Draft N devices implement 802.11e for wireless and WMM.
Yea and verily these devices exist. While QOS tags have been iffy due to consumer and legacy devices not understanding 802.1p QoS tags (and doing odd things) that situation gets better every year as older switches get replaced with current models that implement QoS.
So...you don't need a "full blown computer" as much as an up to date switch and NICs on your settop box.
So, you admit that QoS on ethernet is not a real solution to the problem yet. And those Media PCs you just mentioned really are full blown computers.
Quote:
You may not be a "proponent" of HANA but you sure take thier word for why FW is great and everything else suxxors.
I only mentioned HANA as an example to support my post. I even said in that same post that I doubt HANA will get off the ground. However, from a technological standpoint HANA throws up some very valid considerations that I have mentioned here.
It isn't that is isn't necessary. It's that it isn't AS necessary as it used to be.
So, yes, pros are more likely to want it than consumers. Most audio devices use USB 2. A few use FW. The main difference is bandwidth.
Mel this is simply not true.
Even you were scrambling to find me examples of USB2 interfaces a few days ago
and you only found 1 that was at 'pro' standard
now you're saying "most" ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When we look at the MOTO II vs the III, we see the difference is mostly bandwidth between the interfaces. Otherwise, the units work pretty much the same, other than the features added in the upgrade.
again not true, number of channels, latency, performance issues - not to mention heat - anyone who thinks that multi-tracking audio via USB2 is a pleasure has been putting their nose too close to their overheating notebook vent for too long
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Most consumers devices that had FW are moving to USB 2. That's a simple fact.
and without backup that's a simple opinion (and a wrong one if you look at the facts)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Most new camcorders, once the exclusive user of FW, use USB 2.
Even Apple stopped iPods from using FW years ago. Certainly one of the biggest consumer FW product areas.
these are old arguments that have even been deconstructed by Mr USB2 himself
who used faulty arguments to try and say that firewire is on the decline
(but as he helpfully pointed out still in the majority)
even the statistics he used (seen here in Macworld) say that
"In terms of deployment, FireWire's peak year may be 2008,
with decline setting in by the end of 2009, these analysts warn."
so we haven't seen the peak yet - it's not recorded
and the decline is being predicted - again it hasn't arrived or been measured
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
All I can advise people to do, for their own comfort in the future, is to buy a device based on what it does for them, and in the case of two competing devices that are about equal, buy the USB 2 equipped one.
so you'd advise buying old technology? why?
this USB2 advice only applies for people with computers without another more modern, intelligent, faster connection (ie late 2008 macbook owners)
oh and yes it could apply to those amongst us with no need for anything more powerful...
I don't think you understood the question. This was the dialog, starting with your statement, and then my question:
Are you saying that all of your computers and devices have Power Over Ethernet?
You answered a question about that, with a statement about FW.
Sorry, I misread that. Thanks for the links I'll read them tomorrow. I just wanted to mention quickly why I mentioned the power over ethernet thing.
A couple of months back and friend showed up with LinkSys wireless access point. It weighed a ton and was in a metal casing. I checked online to get an idea of what it was exactly and see if he could actually use it. I think I found it online and its price was something like $1200 and I distinctly remember a reference to Power over Ethernet. As I was short for time I couldn't spend more time with him and I don't know what he eventually did with the thing.
I'll try to check on it. I think it had 200 in the name.
I did a quick check. There seems to be a lot of stuff with Power over Ethernet. I don't know if this link will expire but here goes
Even you were scrambling to find me examples of USB2 interfaces a few days ago
and you only found 1 that was at 'pro' standard
now you're saying "most" ???
I wasn't scrambling. Before I got a chance to look, Vinea posted a half dozen.
But this is the difference between the true "pro" and those who aren't, but who like to think they are. Besides, what do we even mean by "pro"?
Plenty of audio interfaces use USB 2. You have to remember that most audio isn't 16 channel. It's two, and there are plenty of those in USB 2.
Quote:
again not true, number of channels, latency, performance issues - not to mention heat - anyone who thinks that multi-tracking audio via USB2 is a pleasure has been putting their nose too close to their overheating notebook vent for too long
check the specs yourself. Only the total number of channels is different. And most people won't be using those number of channels anyway.
Quote:
and without backup that's a simple opinion (and a wrong one if you look at the facts)
Without backup? What are you referring to? Just look to the devices out there. You will see for yourself. I can't be expected to list every device around, and neither can you.
Quote:
these are old arguments that have even been deconstructed by Mr USB2 himself
who used faulty arguments to try and say that firewire is on the decline
(but as he helpfully pointed out still in the majority)
even the statistics he used (seen here in Macworld) say that
"In terms of deployment, FireWire's peak year may be 2008,
with decline setting in by the end of 2009, these analysts warn."
so we haven't seen the peak yet - it's not recorded
and the decline is being predicted - again it hasn't arrived or been measured
Nonsense! Amazons top camcorder selling list has already been posted. Most of them use USB 2. No D-SLR's use FW anymore, as far as I know. One medium format back does.
Most external HDDs use USB 2 alone. Network drives, which are becoming more popular, use Ethernet.
MP3 players, and videoplayers, use USB 2. HDTV's have HDMI and sometimes USB 2 for flash media.
Where should I stop?
Quote:
so you'd advise buying old technology? why?
this USB2 advice only applies for people with computers without another more modern, intelligent, faster connection (ie late 2008 macbook owners)
I'd advise buying technology that will be supported for sure, rather than technology that won't be supported in the future.
Quote:
oh and yes it could apply to those amongst us with no need for anything more powerful...
Please! I covered you numerous times. If you really need more POWERFUL technology, then buy a you know what.
But, by complaining about the MB, you show that you DON'T need more POWERFUL technology, you just want something newer, and cooler.
HANA simply offered information on why it chose firewire. It's not saying everything else is bad at all. Just why other technologies got ruled out.
Riiight.
Quote:
It's a hedge because in my book 'more than capable' means 'has more than enough capacity to do something'. What is doesn't mean is that in spite of its capacity to do something that it actually will do it when required.
Geez. Fine. GigE can and has pushed HD streams without drops.
Quote:
More hedging. Try changing 'can' for 'will' in that line and we'll be getting somewhere.
It's not hedging...it's called sarcasm. Will be done? Surely it will be done because it has been done.
More done than HANA since that hasn't been anything more than a tech demo.
Quote:
Not at all. However, for HANA that situation is what they want to avoid. Imagine this situation: You are watching a film in your living room. You decide to finish watching it in your bedroom. How would you accomplish this in the scenario you just outlined?
Oh, I dunno. Hit stop in the living room. Go into the bedroom. Bring up the movie in the bedroom and press yes when prompted "start where you left off?". What on earth does this scenario have to do with FW?
Zero.
Quote:
So, you admit that QoS on ethernet is not a real solution to the problem yet. And those Media PCs you just mentioned really are full blown computers.
No. QoS on ethernet is a solution today if you buy devices that support QoS on ethernet today. Which is a hell of a lot more products than support Firewire over coax or HANA. I find it hilarious that you would be all uppity about a solution that exists while crowing about a solution that doesn't exist yet.
The media center PCs are full blown computers because they are media servers. Where pray tell are you streaming HD video from? From your single DVD player? Riiight. That's really useful. Your 300 disc blu-ray player? Might be nice when they build one. Oddly, media center PCs are cheaper.
The media center extenders are...set top boxes. Like a 360, PS3, aTV, etc.
Quote:
I only mentioned HANA as an example to support my post. I even said in that same post that I doubt HANA will get off the ground. However, from a technological standpoint HANA throws up some very valid considerations that I have mentioned here.
From a technological standpoint it seems that HANA is there for TI to push Firewire for some oddball reason. And why would you so value the opinion of something that isn't likely to get off the ground anyway?
That white paper isn't any more interesting than a TI white paper outlining the glory of DLP while dissing LCD and LCOS.
Comments
I think one argument that isn't getting enough of a hearing in this situation isn't so much the merits of FireWire vs USB 2/3 but the fact that the new MacBook computers only have two multi-purpose I/O ports now as oppose to the 3 that are available on the old MacBook computers. If I have a printer, iPod and a backup/data HD I'm now one port short. I know hubs are cheap but still it's a level of complexity I could have avoided with the previous generation of computer.
OK, continue on with the USB vs FireWire deathmatch! May the best eSATA win!
LOL.
I brought up this issue a few pages back but I think the post got deleted in the end. It's a big issue.
Also having FW available allowed users to balance things out a little. I've never been happy with sticking everything on USB via hubs.My experience has not been good. Freedom of choice (on ports) would be nice.
yes you have your bias because of their marketing
I have a bias because I like their products. Marketing always has an influence but it doesn't help a product that sucks at its core.
(and to split hairs, you market something you want to sell - and they're not selling FW
just trying to justify why they use it in their products, hence the bias)
either way for other readers of the white paper
i'm not sure it's useful to say that it's marketing 'bullshit'
Yeah, just because they were penned by a TI firewire sales guy means it must be the absolute truth.
ok, you can have an opinion on what the next connection tech is going to be.
i'm not sure that matters for the point of this thread
It matters because one of the FW proponents brought it up. Do you even read these posts?
either way apple has just released a pretty looking, lemon of a notebook
with a very sturdy case, which is going to last forever
and have a very low resale value as soon as the next update comes out
because it's missing any / all of the future intelligent connections
Bitter much?
it's like they had option paralysis and said "arrrgh can't choose !!!! so let's just not put any decent interface on it !!"
Yep, Apple sucks. Oh well...I guess it's time for you to move on to greener vistas.
Pros are more likely to use FireWire while the vast majority of MacBook consumers have never used it or even heard of it. Apple did the same thing on both machines, it removed FW400. I don't think FW is dying, but I do think that FW400 is a dead-end port interface. It's too bad that Apple didn't make FW800 use the same port interface as FW400, like USB has down with all 3 iterations.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
No I just said that as a technology, nothing out there tops it (even though eSATA for example, may be faster)
I would have agreed ten years ago, but not today.
Computers. Most of the ones I see (PCs included). Peripherals. Within two metres of where I am now I have a firewire printer, scanner, three external hard drives, a small RAID unit and two external DVD writers.
I don't think you understood the question. This was the dialog, starting with your statement, and then my question:
Quote:
I must be getting ahead of myself. I don't know why but I thought power over ethernet already existed.
How many computers or peripherals have you seen with it?
Are you saying that all of your computers and devices have Power Over Ethernet?
You answered a question about that, with a statement about FW.
No. If I plan on using external devices for more than a short period of time I would be using a mains connection for the laptop. If there were no mains connection I would use an extra battery. Either way, having bus power means less bricks.
Heh! Your statement coincides with mine, though you don't realize it.
Same number of bricks.
Could you please expand on this and give some technical reasons as, AFAIW, bus timing is handled in the chipset where peripheral manufacturers can largely forget about that kind of thing.
You don't really want technical reason, do you? There are multi page papers that would do that. This isn't the place for that. If you don't know that adding a cpu to a device allows the software, in firmware to do this, then you won't understand the more technical explanations.
Can you provide documentary evidence of this or a comment from an engineer somewhere that back that statement up.
I'll provide a few links to more current problems with compatibility problems here and there. Finding 15 year old articles isn't easy.
One problem has always been the poor physical layer specs. Some of these problems show that.
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/tec...fw800alert.htm
Read down to the last two sections to see what I'm talking about with command structures and such (meaning protocols). Too much was left in the various manufacturers hands. It took years until many finally agreed on what to do.
http://www.synthetic-ap.com/products...eosupport.html
This is an interesting thread to read. It shows some of the FW problems we experienced on our Macs.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....6860&tstart=12
Check the very bottom of this page.
http://eshop.macsales.com/Descriptio...softraid3.html
These problems were not supposed to happen at all, we were assured, but they did.
https://rainrecording.co.uk/support/article?id=109
Again, this is not supposed to happen, but the lax standards do allow it.
While I can't find early technical articles now, there are enough articles in Google about FW compatibility problems to show it's real.
I was around then and using firewire but you are falling into the same trap again. Native FW on hard drive was important for computer users (of course with hard disks). FW caters to far more than hard disks.
no trap. just a fact. There are over 300 million computers sold a year now, and that number is continually goig up. If FW drives appeared, and were sucessful, most of those computers would now have FW bisses.
Because it failed, they don't. Putting in FW is not worth it for most companies, so they don't. It's limited the use of FW severely, and has lead to the current situation.
Do you really think that if FW dries were here, and FW was at 3,200, Apple would have removed the ports?
No.
When USB camcorders appeared it was for still photography transfer. When USB started to handle video transfer it required special drivers from the manufacturer. Then, if I'm not mistaken, USB was updated to handle video transfer. I'm speaking from memory and have never used a USB camcorder though.
It doesn't matter what the original reason was. What does matter is what it's evolved to. Tape will be obsolete shortly in camcorders. In tapeless camcorders, FW serves no purpose. Indeed, it's a waste of time.
It's most definitely not incorrect or irrelevant. If your A/V devices are not storing content locally I deduce that you now agree with me on the streaming point I raised. And you are incorrect. From a technology perspective a guarantee of content delivery on time is an absolute number one priority in the situations I have put forward. You cannot say 'I have enough speed and bandwidth so things should work'. This stuff cannot be left to chance. Sooner or later your network is going to get congested.
I'm not saying that streaming isn't done on networks, just that your idea of it is irrelevant. I'm not the only one here to point out that FW isn't needed for that.
FW gets just as conjected as dows any other network. I dn't understand your insistance that it won't. FW was NOT designed for network use. It is inferior for that use. Attempts have been made to use it that way for several years. I even have some of the software and devices that were being tested for that purpose. But it wasn't a good idea. It's expensive, as FW was never intended for stretches of more than 15 feet per cable without repeaters, and other hardware.
The networking protocols are not part of the standards, and have been written by several companies in non compatible ways. None have succeeded in becoming used.
Can you point to any successful FW networking companies? I can't. Only a couple that have played around with it.
Ethernet, and other networking systems don't leave moving files around the network to chance. I can't imagine why you would think they do.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
Depending on how Apple markets FW in the future and the success of other technologies, it may not be needed by almost all professionals on the MBP. But that isn't what is being discussed here.
It's clear that some feel that FW400 is needed on the MB. The problem is that those needs aren't shared with the vast majority of people buying a MB. It's not an all or nothing situation, otherwise it would have been removed from the MBP, too. It's about what is the best option for Apple for the majority of their MB consumer demographic.
melgross,
From the Apple/Users/Firewire perspective I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Apple has goofed IMO and although it's unlikely they'll change their stance and put FW back on the MacBook, I won't be buying one without FW.
I had to take the MacBook off my Christmas list and if, when I finally need to upgrade, there is no portable mac in my price range, it will be a hackintosh for me. I sent feedback to Apple but I doubt anything will be done to change things.
When we come back to this discussion a year or so, we will all be much closer on it than we are now.
LOL.
I brought up this issue a few pages back but I think the post got deleted in the end. It's a big issue.
Also having FW available allowed users to balance things out a little. I've never been happy with sticking everything on USB via hubs.My experience has not been good. Freedom of choice (on ports) would be nice.
Limited ports on Macs has always been a fact of life, except on the towers, and even there, we sometimes complain.
"Pros are more likely to use FireWire" is a predicted outcome. I was hoping someone who thinks FW isn't necessary could offer a reason why it's needed on the MBP but not on the MB.
It isn't that is isn't necessary. It's that it isn't AS necessary as it used to be.
So, yes, pros are more likely to want it than consumers. Most audio devices use USB 2. A few use FW. The main difference is bandwidth.
When we look at the MOTO II vs the III, we see the difference is mostly bandwidth between the interfaces. Otherwise, the units work pretty much the same, other than the features added in the upgrade.
Most consumers devices that had FW are moving to USB 2. That's a simple fact.
You can get external drives with USB 2 interfaces (the most common), USB 2 + FW 400 (number two), USB 2, E-SATA (number three),USB 2, FW 400, and E-SATA) number four), and E-SATA (number five). Rarely will you still see drives with just FW these days.
But that doesn't tell us everything. While E-SATA is moving up fast, the USB FW models are shrinking in the marketspace.
Most new camcorders, once the exclusive user of FW, use USB 2.
Even Apple stopped iPods from using FW years ago. Certainly one of the biggest consumer FW product areas.
All I can advise people to do, for their own comfort in the future, is to buy a device based on what it does for them, and in the case of two competing devices that are about equal, buy the USB 2 equipped one.
I don't know how to put this without repeating myself. HANA needs guaranteed QoS.
No. HANA is pushing a technological solution and saying everything else is bad. The need is to distribute HD. How you do so varies.
Why don't you just say 'Gigabit ethernet guarantees real-time HD content delivery without drops'? Why hedge your words with 'more than capable'. If current ethernet standards and equipment can do what HANA needs, just say so.
Since when is "more than capable" a hedge. A hedge is "GigE should be able to deliver HD without drops".
The fact that you, your brother or your best friend has a full blown computer with ample resources outputting content to a HD TV panel over Gigabit ethernet does not make it the solution to the issues that have been put here.
Mmmmkay. Just because it's been done is not proof that it can be done...
But hey, just because companies are building Media Centers, Media Center Extenders and GigE Video Routers doesn't mean HD over IP has any future path...it has to be FW since only it has QoS.
Except that there are layer 2 and layer 3 QoS standards for ethernet. 802.1P/Q and ToS/Diff. Draft N devices implement 802.11e for wireless and WMM.
Yea and verily these devices exist. While QOS tags have been iffy due to consumer and legacy devices not understanding 802.1p QoS tags (and doing odd things) that situation gets better every year as older switches get replaced with current models that implement QoS.
So...you don't need a "full blown computer" as much as an up to date switch and NICs on your settop box.
I thought the white paper listed here was an interesting read. Everybody is free to make their own conclusions.
Again, a white paper written by a TI Firewire sales guy. Yes, draw your own conclusion.
I brought up the subject of HANA as an example because somebody said that firewire was not good (or a good option - I can't remember now) for moving/streaming A/V content. It was only an example to support my post.
A singular example thus far. No one said that Firewire was "not good" just that the consumer market has opted to choose its competitors (aka it'd dead jim).
I'm not a proponent of HANA. I don't even know if it will get off the ground and I said so right from the start. However, from a technological viewpoint it does raise some issues for the people that say FW now has no reason to exist.
I still say FW has no single competitor out there that is better for a broad spectrum of uses. I haven't seen anything here to make me think otherwise.
Except that a single competitor is not a requirement to deliver HD, connect to drives, etc. USB, ethernet and hdmi has beaten FW in the market.
You may not be a "proponent" of HANA but you sure take thier word for why FW is great and everything else suxxors.
That white paper raised an interesting point on the cost of silicon for USB3.0. If that proved to be correct Apple may be missing a good opportunity to really push newer FW versions. Not that it matters much now as I think Apple already considers FW as legacy.
Yah...that translates into "You should by TI silicon and not Intel silicon". Except that folks will need to have USB3 silicon in their box anyway...
I have a bias because I like their products. Marketing always has an influence but it doesn't help a product that sucks at its core.
that's interesting, because Apple's just done a pretty good job on a lot of people
convincing them that having a slower CPU, lower performance, less connectivity, case rigidity that you didn't need and a higher price is worth it
...but you saw straight through that marketing didn't you
Yeah, just because they were penned by a TI firewire sales guy means it must be the absolute truth.
right. so because you don't have any technically sound rebuttal of their points
you're just going to call it 'marketing'
It matters because one of the FW proponents brought it up. Do you even read these posts?
only the ones that come from people who need more than USB2
Bitter much?
yeah totally bitter, i'm currently in therapy over this thread...
i have NO fun winding you up either
Yep, Apple sucks. Oh well...I guess it's time for you to move on to greener vistas.
vista... i've heard that from you before... now if i could just remember where...
whatever
oh right, you're trying to tell the world that if they don't agree with everything that Apple does
then they should move on...
dammit when those marketing guys do their job they sure do it well !
That chip and chipset no longer supports (for PC users as well as Mac users), the PS/2 connector, (E)IDE parallel drives, parallel ports of any kind, serial ports other than SATA and USB, etc. I'm not sure yet, but I don't think they support PCI either, for a secondary bus.
People will have to either get rid of their current devices, or, if they have a computer that will allow it (as more PC's don't), get cards that support these shortly obsolete standards.
Prepare!
Again, a white paper written by a TI Firewire sales guy. Yes, draw your own conclusion.
i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you for proof on that "written by a TI FIrewire sales guy" comment
Yah...that translates into "You should by TI silicon and not Intel silicon". Except that folks will need to have USB3 silicon in their box anyway...
Yah... it makes a big difference to the consumer whether they pay for twice as much silicon in an overheating notebook that has non-proven speed or the same amount in intelligent peripherals
I just wonder, perhaps USB3 will claim the 4.8 Gbps and achieve a fraction of that..
no. definitely not. we should totally assume that USB3 will definitely have 4.8 Gbps
just like USB2 totally hits 480 Mbps today
no even better.
since we all know that USB3 will need more silicon just to get close to the claimed speeds we should just assume that the marketing guys will not run the show
and that notebook makers won't just stick USB3 ports on their machines without sufficient silicon to get the speed... no they'd never do that...
i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you for proof on that "written by a TI FIrewire sales guy" comment
Yah... it makes a big difference to the consumer whether they pay for twice as much silicon in an overheating notebook that has non-proven speed or the same amount in intelligent peripherals
I just wonder, perhaps USB3 will claim the 4.8 Gbps and achieve a fraction of that..
no. definitely not. we should totally assume that USB3 will definitely have 4.8 Gbps
just like USB2 totally hits 480 Mbps today
no even better.
since we all know that USB3 will need more silicon just to get close to the claimed speeds we should just assume that the marketing guys will not run the show
and that notebook makers won't just stick USB3 ports on their machines without sufficient silicon to get the speed... no they'd never do that...
No bus ever delivers 100% of its claimed bandwidth. It also depends on the purpose it's being used for.
For example, FW 400 delivers, at most about 42MB/s. USB 2 delivers about 36MB/s.
USB 3 at 4.8 Gbs will likely deliver about two thirds that in practice, with it's improvements. FW 3.2 Gb/s will likely deliver about 85%.
No major difference in practice, though USB 3 will likely be a bit better.
No. HANA is pushing a technological solution and saying everything else is bad. The need is to distribute HD. How you do so varies.
HANA simply offered information on why it chose firewire. It's not saying everything else is bad at all. Just why other technologies got ruled out.
Since when is "more than capable" a hedge. A hedge is "GigE should be able to deliver HD without drops".
It's a hedge because in my book 'more than capable' means 'has more than enough capacity to do something'. What is doesn't mean is that in spite of its capacity to do something that it actually will do it when required.
Mmmmkay. Just because it's been done is not proof that it can be done...
More hedging. Try changing 'can' for 'will' in that line and we'll be getting somewhere.
But hey, just because companies are building Media Centers, Media Center Extenders and GigE Video Routers doesn't mean HD over IP has any future path...it has to be FW since only it has QoS.
Not at all. However, for HANA that situation is what they want to avoid. Imagine this situation: You are watching a film in your living room. You decide to finish watching it in your bedroom. How would you accomplish this in the scenario you just outlined?
Except that there are layer 2 and layer 3 QoS standards for ethernet. 802.1P/Q and ToS/Diff. Draft N devices implement 802.11e for wireless and WMM.
Yea and verily these devices exist. While QOS tags have been iffy due to consumer and legacy devices not understanding 802.1p QoS tags (and doing odd things) that situation gets better every year as older switches get replaced with current models that implement QoS.
So...you don't need a "full blown computer" as much as an up to date switch and NICs on your settop box.
So, you admit that QoS on ethernet is not a real solution to the problem yet. And those Media PCs you just mentioned really are full blown computers.
You may not be a "proponent" of HANA but you sure take thier word for why FW is great and everything else suxxors.
I only mentioned HANA as an example to support my post. I even said in that same post that I doubt HANA will get off the ground. However, from a technological standpoint HANA throws up some very valid considerations that I have mentioned here.
It isn't that is isn't necessary. It's that it isn't AS necessary as it used to be.
So, yes, pros are more likely to want it than consumers. Most audio devices use USB 2. A few use FW. The main difference is bandwidth.
Mel this is simply not true.
Even you were scrambling to find me examples of USB2 interfaces a few days ago
and you only found 1 that was at 'pro' standard
now you're saying "most" ???
When we look at the MOTO II vs the III, we see the difference is mostly bandwidth between the interfaces. Otherwise, the units work pretty much the same, other than the features added in the upgrade.
again not true, number of channels, latency, performance issues - not to mention heat - anyone who thinks that multi-tracking audio via USB2 is a pleasure has been putting their nose too close to their overheating notebook vent for too long
Most consumers devices that had FW are moving to USB 2. That's a simple fact.
and without backup that's a simple opinion (and a wrong one if you look at the facts)
Most new camcorders, once the exclusive user of FW, use USB 2.
Even Apple stopped iPods from using FW years ago. Certainly one of the biggest consumer FW product areas.
these are old arguments that have even been deconstructed by Mr USB2 himself
who used faulty arguments to try and say that firewire is on the decline
(but as he helpfully pointed out still in the majority)
even the statistics he used (seen here in Macworld) say that
"In terms of deployment, FireWire's peak year may be 2008,
with decline setting in by the end of 2009, these analysts warn."
so we haven't seen the peak yet - it's not recorded
and the decline is being predicted - again it hasn't arrived or been measured
All I can advise people to do, for their own comfort in the future, is to buy a device based on what it does for them, and in the case of two competing devices that are about equal, buy the USB 2 equipped one.
so you'd advise buying old technology? why?
this USB2 advice only applies for people with computers without another more modern, intelligent, faster connection (ie late 2008 macbook owners)
oh and yes it could apply to those amongst us with no need for anything more powerful...
I don't think you understood the question. This was the dialog, starting with your statement, and then my question:
Are you saying that all of your computers and devices have Power Over Ethernet?
You answered a question about that, with a statement about FW.
Sorry, I misread that. Thanks for the links I'll read them tomorrow. I just wanted to mention quickly why I mentioned the power over ethernet thing.
A couple of months back and friend showed up with LinkSys wireless access point. It weighed a ton and was in a metal casing. I checked online to get an idea of what it was exactly and see if he could actually use it. I think I found it online and its price was something like $1200 and I distinctly remember a reference to Power over Ethernet. As I was short for time I couldn't spend more time with him and I don't know what he eventually did with the thing.
I'll try to check on it. I think it had 200 in the name.
I did a quick check. There seems to be a lot of stuff with Power over Ethernet. I don't know if this link will expire but here goes
Mel this is simply not true.
Even you were scrambling to find me examples of USB2 interfaces a few days ago
and you only found 1 that was at 'pro' standard
now you're saying "most" ???
I wasn't scrambling. Before I got a chance to look, Vinea posted a half dozen.
But this is the difference between the true "pro" and those who aren't, but who like to think they are. Besides, what do we even mean by "pro"?
Plenty of audio interfaces use USB 2. You have to remember that most audio isn't 16 channel. It's two, and there are plenty of those in USB 2.
again not true, number of channels, latency, performance issues - not to mention heat - anyone who thinks that multi-tracking audio via USB2 is a pleasure has been putting their nose too close to their overheating notebook vent for too long
check the specs yourself. Only the total number of channels is different. And most people won't be using those number of channels anyway.
and without backup that's a simple opinion (and a wrong one if you look at the facts)
Without backup? What are you referring to? Just look to the devices out there. You will see for yourself. I can't be expected to list every device around, and neither can you.
these are old arguments that have even been deconstructed by Mr USB2 himself
who used faulty arguments to try and say that firewire is on the decline
(but as he helpfully pointed out still in the majority)
even the statistics he used (seen here in Macworld) say that
"In terms of deployment, FireWire's peak year may be 2008,
with decline setting in by the end of 2009, these analysts warn."
so we haven't seen the peak yet - it's not recorded
and the decline is being predicted - again it hasn't arrived or been measured
Nonsense! Amazons top camcorder selling list has already been posted. Most of them use USB 2. No D-SLR's use FW anymore, as far as I know. One medium format back does.
Most external HDDs use USB 2 alone. Network drives, which are becoming more popular, use Ethernet.
MP3 players, and videoplayers, use USB 2. HDTV's have HDMI and sometimes USB 2 for flash media.
Where should I stop?
so you'd advise buying old technology? why?
this USB2 advice only applies for people with computers without another more modern, intelligent, faster connection (ie late 2008 macbook owners)
I'd advise buying technology that will be supported for sure, rather than technology that won't be supported in the future.
oh and yes it could apply to those amongst us with no need for anything more powerful...
Please! I covered you numerous times. If you really need more POWERFUL technology, then buy a you know what.
But, by complaining about the MB, you show that you DON'T need more POWERFUL technology, you just want something newer, and cooler.
HANA simply offered information on why it chose firewire. It's not saying everything else is bad at all. Just why other technologies got ruled out.
Riiight.
It's a hedge because in my book 'more than capable' means 'has more than enough capacity to do something'. What is doesn't mean is that in spite of its capacity to do something that it actually will do it when required.
Geez. Fine. GigE can and has pushed HD streams without drops.
More hedging. Try changing 'can' for 'will' in that line and we'll be getting somewhere.
It's not hedging...it's called sarcasm. Will be done? Surely it will be done because it has been done.
More done than HANA since that hasn't been anything more than a tech demo.
Not at all. However, for HANA that situation is what they want to avoid. Imagine this situation: You are watching a film in your living room. You decide to finish watching it in your bedroom. How would you accomplish this in the scenario you just outlined?
Oh, I dunno. Hit stop in the living room. Go into the bedroom. Bring up the movie in the bedroom and press yes when prompted "start where you left off?". What on earth does this scenario have to do with FW?
Zero.
So, you admit that QoS on ethernet is not a real solution to the problem yet. And those Media PCs you just mentioned really are full blown computers.
No. QoS on ethernet is a solution today if you buy devices that support QoS on ethernet today. Which is a hell of a lot more products than support Firewire over coax or HANA. I find it hilarious that you would be all uppity about a solution that exists while crowing about a solution that doesn't exist yet.
The media center PCs are full blown computers because they are media servers. Where pray tell are you streaming HD video from? From your single DVD player? Riiight. That's really useful. Your 300 disc blu-ray player? Might be nice when they build one. Oddly, media center PCs are cheaper.
The media center extenders are...set top boxes. Like a 360, PS3, aTV, etc.
I only mentioned HANA as an example to support my post. I even said in that same post that I doubt HANA will get off the ground. However, from a technological standpoint HANA throws up some very valid considerations that I have mentioned here.
From a technological standpoint it seems that HANA is there for TI to push Firewire for some oddball reason. And why would you so value the opinion of something that isn't likely to get off the ground anyway?
That white paper isn't any more interesting than a TI white paper outlining the glory of DLP while dissing LCD and LCOS.
Please! I covered you numerous times. If you really need more POWERFUL technology, then buy a you know what.
But, by complaining about the MB, you show that you DON'T need more POWERFUL technology, you just want something newer, and cooler.
i don't need powerful (that's what my MP is for) i just an update of what i've got
but with the problems fixed - the main ones being overheating and a flickering screen (common MB probs)
i don't need powerful (that's what my MP is for) i just an update of what i've got
but with the problems fixed - the main ones being overheating and a flickering screen (common MB probs)
I was responding to your use of the word powerful. I assumed that you used it because you meant it.