If OS X won't boot on your Mac you can boot from an external drive using any of the methods I described above. The only benefit to TDM is being able to use two Macs connected via FW, but I find carrying an external 2.5" HDD that contains a partition with my TM backup less of a chore than carrying an additional cable that I never need....
I'm new(ish) to the Mac world and have never used TDM, but as I understand it it makes the harddrive of the Mac available as an "external disk" to a secondary computer connected via firewire. In the case above, It sounds like the guy is referring to a situation where you have a Mac that not only won't boot, but perhaps the GPU and/or other major components are broken, and you want to be able to troubleshoot and/or pull data from the drive without disassembling the computer....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
While no standard has really ever used its full theoretical speed. The problem with 802.11n is the fact that there is no internet service provider that even provides service anywhere near its theoretical speed.
How is that relevant? Most peoples' internet connections don't even saturate 802.11G. The purpose of having a fast wireless standard is to speed up the transfer of files between computers, allow stutter-free media streaming, fast(er) wireless backups to timecapsule and/or wireless access to NAS devices, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat
... however i was wondering if it would be possible for Apple to sell a USB 3.0 cable for the older devices (ipod/iphones) and have those connect from the older device into the new computer with usb3.0 ports to make a fast connection,...
Lol, I saw your simple question get a few far too indepth answers.... The short answer is that the devices on both ends have to support USB3 in order to realize the USB3 speeds. That said, computer chipsets will be backwards compatible with USB2 devices...
Never had that problem. Never heard of anyone who did have that problem.
Firewire has plenty of its own problems. I stopped using it almost two years ago for storage, and good riddance!
As someone who performs a lot of mac to mac migrations, ethernet migration fails far more often than firewire migration. Not to mention how do you migrate from a computer running 10.3? Unfortunately I come across a lot of computers still running it.
except for the fact that it [usb2] gets the job done AND it works with EVERYTHING.
It may get the job done, but based upon your seeming satisfaction with it, I'd have to imagine you have never had to transfer 50GB+ of files onto an external USB2-only harddrive..
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
enjoy the FW800 on my iMac for hard drives, but it's a pretty chunky port. If USB 3 keeps the ports and cables the same, that will be an advantage.
Taking advantage of the speed of USB3 requires a different port and a different cable.. although the cable is backwards compatible with USB2. (You only connect the USB2 portion of itI believe..)
I don't understand why USB 3 is needed. I've yet to ever, in all my computing days, come anywhere close to the 60 Megabyte per second transfer rate advertised for USB 2. It's never more than...2 Megabytes a second.
? I don't understand your reasoning here.. USB2 doesn't get anywhere close to 480mbps in real world usage, and therefore USB3 isn't necessary??
This is the much-needed info missing from the article.
I'm surprised FW3200 isn't much further ahead in this process. After all, its basic design has been bandied about for some time.
I was hoping we'd see FW3200 on Macs and devices by Fall 2009.
If FW3200 is coming out the same year as USB3 it will be judged an epic failure.
One reason why I don't think that FW is going to make it in the long term is because they are running too far behind. We should have had 1600 during 2006. That was about what the original timing was. Then 3200 was set for sometime 2008.
To slip like that is pretty bad. If their timings worked out, then USB 3 would had a harder time competing, assuming that it couldn't have been pushed up, though that would have been difficult.
And then we will see the new SATA 6Gb/s. That's the correct name for what people will be calling SATA III, or SATA 3.
The name pretty much tells it all. We will also see this year, a power over SATA using the present cabling for e-SATA.
SATA simply works better for storage, and a port multiplier will allow up to 15 drives off one 550 MB/s port. That should be enough for anyone, and it actually works. We're using them now.
As much as I hate to say it, I think Firewire is on its way out despite its many advantages. I predicted we'll see Firewire dropped from the iMac, mini, and MacBooks first, then eventually from Pro level machines; dependent on, of course, what high-end media equipment makers do. It's up in the air as to whether these future Pro machines will implement the faster Firewire standards. I personally love FW, and that you really don't need anything like a hub as you do for USB. The biggest advantage USB has is its use of the same connector. I recently searched around for some FW cables and was surprised to see the reduce availability of FW suppliers.
No doubt Apple will keep FW for as long as it makes sense, ie, it's a Professional standard.
I don't know why they didn't mention it there, but the standard has optical or copper. I should have mentioned that. The optical links will come a bit later. Sorry, I get so excited about that, I sometimes forget the more mundane.
That article is almost two years old, is there any chance they abandoned it? I tried Google and did not find many articles, most of them are about the same age. This is the newest article on optical USB that I could find on short notice:
While the Superspeed USB cables and connectors retain backward compatibility with USB 2.0, Intel has stepped away from initial plans to use an optical interconnect for USB 3.0’s digital autobahn. A spokesperson at IDF’s Superspeed USB demo area told APC that optical was dropped due to the increased price of the cabling, connectors and the termination cost at each end of the line compared to conventional cable. Optical would have delivered even higher speeds but the current rate of USB 3.0 was “good enough” without raising the technology’s overall cost to manufacturers and thus consumers.
Maybe USB 4 will feature optical unless electrical still does better for cost.
USB is the ubiquitous standard for connecting peripherals to your computer, much like serial, PS2 or ADB ports in the past. It is <not> the ideal standard for high speed data transfer:
-FinalCut Pro and ProTools cannot use USB connected storage media for real-time recording and playback. This is not due to the faster speed of Firewire but rather the method the USB standard uses to transfer data is not conducive to real-time recording.
-There are still a lot of current video devices that require firewire, no matter what Steve Jobs says about USB camcorders.
-When you have 400 GB of data to transfer and time is of the essence. firewire is the faster way.
Both standards have a place on computers. I would rather spend the extra $20 for a Macbook that includes firewire.
That article is almost two years old, is there any chance they abandoned it? I tried Google and did not find many articles, most of them are about the same age. This is the newest article on optical USB that I could find on short notice:
No, that's just the first article I found, so I posted if for the info. The optical standard will be a major factor in high performance use.
Quote:
Maybe USB 4 will feature optical unless electrical still does better for cost.
Yes, optical will be more expensive, at least at first, after all, that's what has hurt FW. but that cost is expected to come down. Plastic fiber is much less expensive than copper cabling, even glass fiber has dropped almost ten times in price the past five years. It's the electrical to optical chips that are expensive, but breakthroughs there over the past year look really good.
USB is the ubiquitous standard for connecting peripherals to your computer, much like serial, PS2 or ADB ports in the past. It is <not> the ideal standard for high speed data transfer:
-FinalCut Pro and ProTools cannot use USB connected storage media for real-time recording and playback. This is not due to the faster speed of Firewire but rather the method the USB standard uses to transfer data is not conducive to real-time recording.
-There are still a lot of current video devices that require firewire, no matter what Steve Jobs says about USB camcorders.
-When you have 400 GB of data to transfer and time is of the essence. firewire is the faster way.
Both standards have a place on computers. I would rather spend the extra $20 for a Macbook that includes firewire.
USB 3 is different from USB 2 in a number of ways that will help that transfer. But a lot of professional video is also transferred over Gb Ethernet. The Mac Pro's, for example, like other workstations, have two Gb Ethernet ports. They can either be used to connect to two networks at the same time, or can be conglomerated to act as one 2 GB/s port. This works very well.
It seems that optical is up in the air right now, even though it was mentioned as being part of the spec originally by Intel. So you could be right that it will come later. If so, it;s likely the cost of the optical converters as I mentioned. I'm finding opposing information as to that, and I haven't had a chance to speak to anyone who knows more, which I hope I will be able to do next week.
Meanwhile, this site is a very good one for USB. It explains why this will be much better. Many of the changed specs make this more like FW. I think you will be interested.
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
I hadn't realized how much those Flip and flip-alikes had taken the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshort
I'm more interested in Wireless USB... I don't want no stinking cables!
Sure. But given how well the Canon HF10 performed, I think that we can safely say that AVCHD will overtake HDV in the consumer space given most consumers don't edit. And the Sony SR12 is no slacker either.
Comments
If OS X won't boot on your Mac you can boot from an external drive using any of the methods I described above. The only benefit to TDM is being able to use two Macs connected via FW, but I find carrying an external 2.5" HDD that contains a partition with my TM backup less of a chore than carrying an additional cable that I never need....
I'm new(ish) to the Mac world and have never used TDM, but as I understand it it makes the harddrive of the Mac available as an "external disk" to a secondary computer connected via firewire. In the case above, It sounds like the guy is referring to a situation where you have a Mac that not only won't boot, but perhaps the GPU and/or other major components are broken, and you want to be able to troubleshoot and/or pull data from the drive without disassembling the computer....
While no standard has really ever used its full theoretical speed. The problem with 802.11n is the fact that there is no internet service provider that even provides service anywhere near its theoretical speed.
How is that relevant? Most peoples' internet connections don't even saturate 802.11G. The purpose of having a fast wireless standard is to speed up the transfer of files between computers, allow stutter-free media streaming, fast(er) wireless backups to timecapsule and/or wireless access to NAS devices, etc...
... however i was wondering if it would be possible for Apple to sell a USB 3.0 cable for the older devices (ipod/iphones) and have those connect from the older device into the new computer with usb3.0 ports to make a fast connection,...
Lol, I saw your simple question get a few far too indepth answers.... The short answer is that the devices on both ends have to support USB3 in order to realize the USB3 speeds. That said, computer chipsets will be backwards compatible with USB2 devices...
I've used it a lot, and it works perfectly.
Sure, it needs 10.4 11. So what?
Never had that problem. Never heard of anyone who did have that problem.
Firewire has plenty of its own problems. I stopped using it almost two years ago for storage, and good riddance!
As someone who performs a lot of mac to mac migrations, ethernet migration fails far more often than firewire migration. Not to mention how do you migrate from a computer running 10.3? Unfortunately I come across a lot of computers still running it.
except for the fact that it [usb2] gets the job done AND it works with EVERYTHING.
It may get the job done, but based upon your seeming satisfaction with it, I'd have to imagine you have never had to transfer 50GB+ of files onto an external USB2-only harddrive..
enjoy the FW800 on my iMac for hard drives, but it's a pretty chunky port. If USB 3 keeps the ports and cables the same, that will be an advantage.
Taking advantage of the speed of USB3 requires a different port and a different cable.. although the cable is backwards compatible with USB2. (You only connect the USB2 portion of itI believe..)
I don't understand why USB 3 is needed. I've yet to ever, in all my computing days, come anywhere close to the 60 Megabyte per second transfer rate advertised for USB 2. It's never more than...2 Megabytes a second.
? I don't understand your reasoning here.. USB2 doesn't get anywhere close to 480mbps in real world usage, and therefore USB3 isn't necessary??
This is the much-needed info missing from the article.
I'm surprised FW3200 isn't much further ahead in this process. After all, its basic design has been bandied about for some time.
I was hoping we'd see FW3200 on Macs and devices by Fall 2009.
If FW3200 is coming out the same year as USB3 it will be judged an epic failure.
One reason why I don't think that FW is going to make it in the long term is because they are running too far behind. We should have had 1600 during 2006. That was about what the original timing was. Then 3200 was set for sometime 2008.
To slip like that is pretty bad. If their timings worked out, then USB 3 would had a harder time competing, assuming that it couldn't have been pushed up, though that would have been difficult.
And then we will see the new SATA 6Gb/s. That's the correct name for what people will be calling SATA III, or SATA 3.
The name pretty much tells it all. We will also see this year, a power over SATA using the present cabling for e-SATA.
SATA simply works better for storage, and a port multiplier will allow up to 15 drives off one 550 MB/s port. That should be enough for anyone, and it actually works. We're using them now.
This is what I hope to see from Apple.
No doubt Apple will keep FW for as long as it makes sense, ie, it's a Professional standard.
I don't know why they didn't mention it there, but the standard has optical or copper. I should have mentioned that. The optical links will come a bit later. Sorry, I get so excited about that, I sometimes forget the more mundane.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/09...b_3_announced/
That article is almost two years old, is there any chance they abandoned it? I tried Google and did not find many articles, most of them are about the same age. This is the newest article on optical USB that I could find on short notice:
http://apcmag.com/usb_30_tops_300mbs..._next_year.htm
While the Superspeed USB cables and connectors retain backward compatibility with USB 2.0, Intel has stepped away from initial plans to use an optical interconnect for USB 3.0’s digital autobahn. A spokesperson at IDF’s Superspeed USB demo area told APC that optical was dropped due to the increased price of the cabling, connectors and the termination cost at each end of the line compared to conventional cable. Optical would have delivered even higher speeds but the current rate of USB 3.0 was “good enough” without raising the technology’s overall cost to manufacturers and thus consumers.
Maybe USB 4 will feature optical unless electrical still does better for cost.
-FinalCut Pro and ProTools cannot use USB connected storage media for real-time recording and playback. This is not due to the faster speed of Firewire but rather the method the USB standard uses to transfer data is not conducive to real-time recording.
-There are still a lot of current video devices that require firewire, no matter what Steve Jobs says about USB camcorders.
-When you have 400 GB of data to transfer and time is of the essence. firewire is the faster way.
Both standards have a place on computers. I would rather spend the extra $20 for a Macbook that includes firewire.
Maybe sooner than that
That article is almost two years old, is there any chance they abandoned it? I tried Google and did not find many articles, most of them are about the same age. This is the newest article on optical USB that I could find on short notice:
http://apcmag.com/usb_30_tops_300mbs..._next_year.htm
No, that's just the first article I found, so I posted if for the info. The optical standard will be a major factor in high performance use.
Maybe USB 4 will feature optical unless electrical still does better for cost.
Yes, optical will be more expensive, at least at first, after all, that's what has hurt FW. but that cost is expected to come down. Plastic fiber is much less expensive than copper cabling, even glass fiber has dropped almost ten times in price the past five years. It's the electrical to optical chips that are expensive, but breakthroughs there over the past year look really good.
USB is the ubiquitous standard for connecting peripherals to your computer, much like serial, PS2 or ADB ports in the past. It is <not> the ideal standard for high speed data transfer:
-FinalCut Pro and ProTools cannot use USB connected storage media for real-time recording and playback. This is not due to the faster speed of Firewire but rather the method the USB standard uses to transfer data is not conducive to real-time recording.
-There are still a lot of current video devices that require firewire, no matter what Steve Jobs says about USB camcorders.
-When you have 400 GB of data to transfer and time is of the essence. firewire is the faster way.
Both standards have a place on computers. I would rather spend the extra $20 for a Macbook that includes firewire.
USB 3 is different from USB 2 in a number of ways that will help that transfer. But a lot of professional video is also transferred over Gb Ethernet. The Mac Pro's, for example, like other workstations, have two Gb Ethernet ports. They can either be used to connect to two networks at the same time, or can be conglomerated to act as one 2 GB/s port. This works very well.
No, that's just the first article I found, so I posted if for the info. The optical standard will be a major factor in high performance use.
I haven't found any reasonably recent article or information that says it's still coming in the 3.0 standard.
I haven't found any reasonably recent article or information that says it's still coming in the 3.0 standard.
I have this mention:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01...sb_3_revealed/
It seems that optical is up in the air right now, even though it was mentioned as being part of the spec originally by Intel. So you could be right that it will come later. If so, it;s likely the cost of the optical converters as I mentioned. I'm finding opposing information as to that, and I haven't had a chance to speak to anyone who knows more, which I hope I will be able to do next week.
Meanwhile, this site is a very good one for USB. It explains why this will be much better. Many of the changed specs make this more like FW. I think you will be interested.
http://www.everythingusb.com/superspeed-usb.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...ef=pd_ts_p_nav
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
Well FW 400 is almost dead as a consumer port. FW800 is nice to have on the mini though.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...ef=pd_ts_p_nav
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
That's the term that matters now "consumer" port.
It will hang on for a while in the pro space.
Well FW 400 is almost dead as a consumer port. FW800 is nice to have on the mini though.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...ef=pd_ts_p_nav
The first FW400 camcorder is #6 and it's the only miniDV camcorder that requires FW in the top 25 list. Everything else is a DVD, HDD or Flash camcorder.
After the last miniDV/consumer HDV cam is offered FW400 and probably FW in general is dead as a consumer port.
I hadn't realized how much those Flip and flip-alikes had taken the market.
I'm more interested in Wireless USB... I don't want no stinking cables!
How would you handle power or charging?
I hadn't realized how much those Flip and flip-alikes had taken the market.
They're the Netbooks of the camcorder world.
That's the term that matters now "consumer" port.
It will hang on for a while in the pro space.
Sure. But given how well the Canon HF10 performed, I think that we can safely say that AVCHD will overtake HDV in the consumer space given most consumers don't edit. And the Sony SR12 is no slacker either.