I'm not so sure. It still costs more, and I'm seeing newer boards from the major third party board manufacturers not including them on any other than their performance enthusiast boards.
The need for FW is rapidly diminishing. That doesn't mean that no one will want it for a time yet, but most people won't.
Keep thinking it is rapidly diminishing. It's not, it's just being redirected to far more specific markets that aren't jimmy, bobby, susie and their digital camcorders.
FW1394b just made it into the Linux 2.6.30 kernel by default. With new Macs now having FW800 and Linux pushing FW800 I expect more generic PCs to include FW800 ports, by default.
This is the crux of the problem. Firewire's always one step behind where it should be.
Apple's own product line JUST got FW800 across the board.
And, as you point out, Linux is now on the train as well.
Problem is, this is where things should have been two years ago.
Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. Not 800.
Given the time getting to 800 has taken, I think FW3200 has no chance of gaining significant ground before USB 3 appears.
Keep thinking it is rapidly diminishing. It's not, it's just being redirected to far more specific markets that aren't jimmy, bobby, susie and their digital camcorders.
More specific markets MEANS that it's diminishing.
If Jimmy, Bobby and Susie are not needing it for their digital camcorders as they did two years ago, and as a result, less computers come equipped with it, then it's diminishing.
We're seeing a retrenching of the market for FW. That's pretty clear.
When it first came out, I was one of its biggest supporters. But now, I've left it except for minor devices such as my flash card reader. My two four drive towers are sitting idle, just like my old SCSI towers before.
My pro level Canon camcorders still use FW, that's true, but newer models will either not, or will give us a choice. I fully expect to not be using tape the next generation.
Most people would rather see fewer different ports, and more of one kind. As performance rises, the differences will become less important.
FW 3,200 has a theoretical limit of 400 MB/s. USB 3 has 640 MB/s as a theoretical limit. If we get 90% of FW's limit, we will see 360 MB/s. If we get 70% of USB 3's , we get 448 MB/s.
No matter how we look at that, FW won't be looking down on USB this time. The other advantages are just needed for a small subset of users. With more devices using direct transfer to the computer, or flash cards for storage, FW's need will continue to diminish. Even in the pro audio industry, FW is used because of its higher transfer rates more than for any other reason. USB 3 will end that need. We know that USB can work well with video, so that's another nail in FW's coffin.
With a number of computer manufacturers beginning to offer E-SATA, and with the new version offering 750 MB/s transfer rates with power over the line, where exactly does this leave FW?
"Firewire is far superior to USB in real-world tests. Even Firewire 400 is far superior to USB 2, and Firewire 3200 has been out for months now. ..."
" ... Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. ..."
" ... Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one. ..."
" ... The development of USB 3.0 without the "intelligent perhiperal" element is a dealbreaker for me. ..."
I never really understood why the perception is that USB and FireWire were somehow competing protocols. There are several distinct differences that give USB an advantage and several more than make FireWire a superior performer ... and there are a few tasks that neither USB nor EtherNet can do.
USB has its place on the desktop = mice, keyboards, joysticks, printers, scanners ... any and all of which really don't need speeds beyond ~ 9600 baud. (Moving your joystick really, really fast = <4800 bps.) The connection to "dumb", slow peripherals is the USB arena.
FireWire has a unique and higher performance place in the interconnect of "smart" peripherals ... multiple disc arrays, high performance multi-media, peer to peer CPUs, co-processing and multi-processing without handshaking, independent co-related processing, double duplex override and process control ... multi-channel machine vision.
As for clock speeds ... well, everybody now needs USB for the human interface, but not a really, really fast USB ... not a "need" anyway. There are specialized areas where there is no good substitute for FireWire and the faster the better. As clock speeds increase FireWire is faster than just about anything else, because of FWs peer to peer nature and slim address protocol, the FireWire advantage increasing with clock speed.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200, bidirectionally over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do) ... in both directions.
Its really all a matter what the consumer or the engineering department wants ... "or" being Exclusive Or, not and/or.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200 over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do).
Wow, I knew Firewire was good, but wow! ~5GB per second? That's unbelievable.
"Firewire is far superior to USB in real-world tests. Even Firewire 400 is far superior to USB 2, and Firewire 3200 has been out for months now. ..."
" ... Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. ..."
" ... Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one. ..."
" ... The development of USB 3.0 without the "intelligent perhiperal" element is a dealbreaker for me. ..."
I never really understood why the perception is that USB and FireWire were somehow competing protocols. There are several distinct differences that give USB an advantage and several more than make FireWire a superior performer ... and there are a few tasks that neither USB nor EtherNet can do.
USB has its place on the desktop = mice, keyboards, joysticks, printers, scanners ... any and all of which really don't need speeds beyond ~ 9600 baud. (Moving your joystick really, really fast = <4800 bps.) The connection to "dumb", slow peripherals is the USB arena.
FireWire has a unique and higher performance place in the interconnect of "smart" peripherals ... multiple disc arrays, high performance multi-media, peer to peer CPUs, co-processing and multi-processing without handshaking, independent co-related processing, double duplex override and process control ... multi-channel machine vision.
As for clock speeds ... well, everybody now needs USB for the human interface, but not a really, really fast USB ... not a "need" anyway. There are specialized areas where there is no good substitute for FireWire and the faster the better. As clock speeds increase FireWire is faster than just about anything else, because of FWs peer to peer nature and slim address protocol, the FireWire advantage increasing with clock speed.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200, bidirectionally over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do) ... in both directions.
Its really all a matter what the consumer or the engineering department wants ... "or" being Exclusive Or, not and/or.
Of course they're competing. There is so much overlap in usage that competition can't be helped. They both compete with SATA in external storage.
This is the nature of the beast. It has more than one action.
" ... Of course they're competing. There is so much overlap in usage that competition can't be helped ... They both [also] compete with SATA in external storage. ... "
" ... the two connection types are complementary as much as they compete. ..."
" ... knew Firewire was good, but wow! ~5GB per second? ..."
Of course, of course ... Yes these all compete for desktop connections. And for the consumer desktop USB is dominant, understandable.
Best performance over short distances = less than 10 feet = SATA.
Universal appeal, drives, burners, mice, keyboards over short distances less than 10 feet = USB.
Best performance over extended lengths > 30 feet = FireWire.
Best performance for specific scenarios like co-processing, multi-processing = FireWire.
===
FW800 = ~ 800 mbps = ~ 0.8 gbps.
FW3200 = ~ 3.2 gbps
16 channel multiplexed FW3200 = 16 times ~3.2 gbps = very approximately 40 gbps = very experimental using multiple sources, prototype chip sets, multiple laser transceivers of different color pairs = not nearly ready for prime time ... but it works. (A similar scenario can push (and pull) Display Port / HDMI / Dual Link DVI / HD video and audio out to 1/4 mile over a single fiber, in production and available late this summer. )
Apple Techs to avoid taking advice from IMO. If Apple wanted FW gone they wouldn't have added FW back to the Macbook pro.
Jesus how many freakin' times does a person have to explain things to people with thick craniums.
USB - host based. Requires a computer in the chain and will inherently use more CPU
Firewire- peer to peer connection that offers low latency without the need for a computer inline.
As FastEddy says the two connection types are complementary as much as they compete. There's no value in standardizing on USB IMO.
USB CPU consumption used to be an issue, but I can't say I recall it being a problem lately. All this peer controller does for most people is increase the device cost. FW 800 across the product line will probably help availability in the short term, but other than for specialized needs, I wonder how FW will fare.
USB CPU consumption used to be an issue, but I can't say I recall it being a problem lately. All this peer controller does for most people is increase the device cost.
Yes but it enables hardware features that Professionals need like Pro Canon Cameras with powered FW for attaching drives and accessories.
Almost invariably the people saying "Firewire is going to go away" are oblivious to the penetration of FW within Pro Audio and Video verticals.
Will FW 3200 see the light of day? Hopefully.
I'm happy to see both but USB isn't going to eradicate the need for Firewire anytime soon
" USB CPU consumption used to be an issue, but I can't say I recall it being a problem lately. ..."
An insignificant issue = USB has its own 32 bit processor connected to the desktop computer / CPU host bus, so performance degradation, if noticeable, of the CPU and bus is pretty much same, same compared to other interfaces like EtherNet and FireWire or whatever. Thus CPU performance through modern USB 1.1, 2.0 or 3.x is not an issue. (The older Apple keyboard/mouse interfaces did have a small problem, a performance issue, being 8 bit, but not any of the new stuff.)
" ... Will FW 3200 see the light of day? ..."
FW3200 is on the lab bench, anyway. Texas Instruments is "sampling" the chips to interested manufacturers. Note that "pure" FireWire to fiber optic interface is a reality ... there just needs to be customers interested in peer to peer over distance at speeds greater than any other hardware protocol. Apple invented FireWire ... but they "don't talk about future products".
" ... Yes, they said the same thing about RS-232, but where is that today? ..."
Well, it is still the interface of choice in oil field exploration = long lines to sensors that are relatively lightning strike resistant. If you have ever seen oil field exploration in action like in the Great Plains of South Dakota = six or so, five hundred foot long, twisted pair with shield copper connectors (just like antenna) feeding a bunch of RS-232 audio sensors ("dirt sonar"), laid out in a big circle with the engineer and his computer in the center ... well, lightning strike is the most significant cause of death among these oil field engineers, so they all see RS-232 as the "fuse" in the circuit.
And there is a whole bunch of factory floor equipment that is interfaced via RS-232 ... programmable industrial sewing machines, to name one category.
" ... Yes, they said the same thing about RS-232, but where is that today? ..."
Well, it is still the interface of choice in oil field exploration = long lines to sensors that are relatively lightning strike resistant. If you have every seen oil field exploration in action like in the Great Plains of South Dakota, six or so, five hundred foot long twisted pair with shield copper connectors feeding a bunch of RS-232 audio sensors ... well, lightning strike is the most significant cause of death among these oil field engineers, so they all see RS-232 as the "fuse" in the circuit.
And there is a whole bunch of factory floor equipment that is interfaced via RS-232 ... programmable industrial sewing machines, to name one category.
Those are important fields, but they are pretty well served with devices designed for rugged use. Factory lines also have their own communication standards too. For hobbyist use, I'm content with a USB to RS232 adapter. It worked pretty well when I was using it. I even have a Bluetooth to RS-232 adapter, I never used it though.
I would think that optical might be more desirable where lightning strikes were a concern.
Those are important fields, but they are pretty well served with devices designed for rugged use. Factory lines also have their own communication standards too. For hobbyist use, I'm content with a USB to RS232 adapter. It worked pretty well when I was using it. I even have a Bluetooth to RS-232 adapter, I never used it though.
I would think that optical might be more desirable where lightning strikes were a concern.
In many of these cases, even where fasteddie is mentioning, 232 has long been replaced by 485.
but then again, even that's dying out in the oil industry and other places. I have a number of pieces of older pro video and audio decks I never parted with. They have them. Few modern units do though.
SDI replaced much of this years ago on the high end. Some of my stuff has SDI for high end use, 232 or 485 for control (some have 232 and 485), and one also has FW400 for low end video in.
I haven't used these things for years, they're in plastic covered boxes in the attic, along with my computer collection.
I'm not so sure. It still costs more, and I'm seeing newer boards from the major third party board manufacturers not including them on any other than their performance enthusiast boards.
The need for FW is rapidly diminishing. That doesn't mean that no one will want it for a time yet, but most people won't.
Just like with the digital camera, the PDA, the PC itself, etc.
FW can be used between devices with no need for a computer in between and it is extremely reliable in terms of speed. I think it'll be around for a while but be seen on less PCs, particularly laptops.
Hey FastEddy are you in a profession that works in the "field"? Might I ask what you do? That's interesting to hear about lighting! I am an environmental scientist and I have to say serial and parallel are widely used on field equipment. Like water quality equipment like YSI, Quanta, etc. Perhaps it is more reliable than USB or FW or something. Of course in the office a USB adapter usually ends up being used anyway.
Just like with the digital camera, the PDA, the PC itself, etc.
FW can be used between devices with no need for a computer in between and it is extremely reliable in terms of speed. I think it'll be around for a while but be seen on less PCs, particularly laptops.
Hey FastEddy are you in a profession that works in the "field"? Might I ask what you do? That's interesting to hear about lighting! I am an environmental scientist and I have to say serial and parallel are widely used on field equipment. Like water quality equipment like YSI, Quanta, etc. Perhaps it is more reliable than USB or FW or something. Of course in the office a USB adapter usually ends up being used anyway.
The promise of FW to FW devices way back in the beginning seemed to be a good one. Why? Because computers cost even more than they do now, and were far far slower in speed as well as capacity in RAM, HDDs etc.
But that promise was never realized. I tried to get video to video to work well, but even with pro level equipment, it was a waste of time. That was a big selling point for the average person though, and that was a total loss.
That was the main point. the other was speed, and the last was better IQ for video streaming.
But, for most users, the USB 2 that came out later was good enough, The video streaming aspects turned out to only matter to pros, who had and have better solutions in the high end, with the various implementations of SDI over the years.
It turns out that for most uses, we do need a computer anyway. For external drives, USB 2 is again fast enough for most people. But USB 3 will be out shortly and the new SATA controllers will be as well.
While FW will live on for some things here and there, the real question is whether it will be important enough to supply on a computer in another two years.
I don't think it will. I did say that Apple got rid of it too early, and indeed, they did bring it back.
I know that some people cry that their legacy devices won't work, but thats just the way it goes. I've got plenty of stuff that's gone the way of the dinosaur. I don't cry over it. I just shrug, and get new stuff.
Comments
I'm not so sure. It still costs more, and I'm seeing newer boards from the major third party board manufacturers not including them on any other than their performance enthusiast boards.
The need for FW is rapidly diminishing. That doesn't mean that no one will want it for a time yet, but most people won't.
Keep thinking it is rapidly diminishing. It's not, it's just being redirected to far more specific markets that aren't jimmy, bobby, susie and their digital camcorders.
FW1394b just made it into the Linux 2.6.30 kernel by default. With new Macs now having FW800 and Linux pushing FW800 I expect more generic PCs to include FW800 ports, by default.
This is the crux of the problem. Firewire's always one step behind where it should be.
Apple's own product line JUST got FW800 across the board.
And, as you point out, Linux is now on the train as well.
Problem is, this is where things should have been two years ago.
Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. Not 800.
Given the time getting to 800 has taken, I think FW3200 has no chance of gaining significant ground before USB 3 appears.
Keep thinking it is rapidly diminishing. It's not, it's just being redirected to far more specific markets that aren't jimmy, bobby, susie and their digital camcorders.
More specific markets MEANS that it's diminishing.
If Jimmy, Bobby and Susie are not needing it for their digital camcorders as they did two years ago, and as a result, less computers come equipped with it, then it's diminishing.
We're seeing a retrenching of the market for FW. That's pretty clear.
When it first came out, I was one of its biggest supporters. But now, I've left it except for minor devices such as my flash card reader. My two four drive towers are sitting idle, just like my old SCSI towers before.
My pro level Canon camcorders still use FW, that's true, but newer models will either not, or will give us a choice. I fully expect to not be using tape the next generation.
Most people would rather see fewer different ports, and more of one kind. As performance rises, the differences will become less important.
FW 3,200 has a theoretical limit of 400 MB/s. USB 3 has 640 MB/s as a theoretical limit. If we get 90% of FW's limit, we will see 360 MB/s. If we get 70% of USB 3's , we get 448 MB/s.
No matter how we look at that, FW won't be looking down on USB this time. The other advantages are just needed for a small subset of users. With more devices using direct transfer to the computer, or flash cards for storage, FW's need will continue to diminish. Even in the pro audio industry, FW is used because of its higher transfer rates more than for any other reason. USB 3 will end that need. We know that USB can work well with video, so that's another nail in FW's coffin.
With a number of computer manufacturers beginning to offer E-SATA, and with the new version offering 750 MB/s transfer rates with power over the line, where exactly does this leave FW?
With a small, diminishing market.
This is the crux of the problem. Firewire's always one step behind where it should be.
Apple's own product line JUST got FW800 across the board.
And, as you point out, Linux is now on the train as well.
Problem is, this is where things should have been two years ago.
Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. Not 800.
Given the time getting to 800 has taken, I think FW3200 has no chance of gaining significant ground before USB 3 appears.
Apparently, FW 3,200 won't even appear until after USB 3 is on many computers, and devices.
" ... Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. ..."
" ... Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one. ..."
" ... The development of USB 3.0 without the "intelligent perhiperal" element is a dealbreaker for me. ..."
I never really understood why the perception is that USB and FireWire were somehow competing protocols. There are several distinct differences that give USB an advantage and several more than make FireWire a superior performer ... and there are a few tasks that neither USB nor EtherNet can do.
USB has its place on the desktop = mice, keyboards, joysticks, printers, scanners ... any and all of which really don't need speeds beyond ~ 9600 baud. (Moving your joystick really, really fast = <4800 bps.) The connection to "dumb", slow peripherals is the USB arena.
FireWire has a unique and higher performance place in the interconnect of "smart" peripherals ... multiple disc arrays, high performance multi-media, peer to peer CPUs, co-processing and multi-processing without handshaking, independent co-related processing, double duplex override and process control ... multi-channel machine vision.
As for clock speeds ... well, everybody now needs USB for the human interface, but not a really, really fast USB ... not a "need" anyway. There are specialized areas where there is no good substitute for FireWire and the faster the better. As clock speeds increase FireWire is faster than just about anything else, because of FWs peer to peer nature and slim address protocol, the FireWire advantage increasing with clock speed.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200, bidirectionally over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do) ... in both directions.
Its really all a matter what the consumer or the engineering department wants ... "or" being Exclusive Or, not and/or.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200 over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do).
Wow, I knew Firewire was good, but wow! ~5GB per second? That's unbelievable.
"Firewire is far superior to USB in real-world tests. Even Firewire 400 is far superior to USB 2, and Firewire 3200 has been out for months now. ..."
" ... Snow Leopard and Linux hardware should be giving us FW3200 this year. ..."
" ... Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one. ..."
" ... The development of USB 3.0 without the "intelligent perhiperal" element is a dealbreaker for me. ..."
I never really understood why the perception is that USB and FireWire were somehow competing protocols. There are several distinct differences that give USB an advantage and several more than make FireWire a superior performer ... and there are a few tasks that neither USB nor EtherNet can do.
USB has its place on the desktop = mice, keyboards, joysticks, printers, scanners ... any and all of which really don't need speeds beyond ~ 9600 baud. (Moving your joystick really, really fast = <4800 bps.) The connection to "dumb", slow peripherals is the USB arena.
FireWire has a unique and higher performance place in the interconnect of "smart" peripherals ... multiple disc arrays, high performance multi-media, peer to peer CPUs, co-processing and multi-processing without handshaking, independent co-related processing, double duplex override and process control ... multi-channel machine vision.
As for clock speeds ... well, everybody now needs USB for the human interface, but not a really, really fast USB ... not a "need" anyway. There are specialized areas where there is no good substitute for FireWire and the faster the better. As clock speeds increase FireWire is faster than just about anything else, because of FWs peer to peer nature and slim address protocol, the FireWire advantage increasing with clock speed.
Over fiber, an interesting disadvantage for USB appears. Because of the "top down" nature of the protocol, extra processors are needed in the data stream to extend USB beyond ~ 150 feet. Not so for FireWire. In fact all FireWire 100/200/400/800/1600 can extend beyond a quarter mile over fiber, easily and relatively inexpensively, making massive processing of on-demand video server farms possible. And (in Korea) there are bench prototype fiber laser transceivers passing 16 channel, FW3200, bidirectionally over a single fiber, 4 miles long, with an effective through put in excess of 5000 MegaBytes per second = 40,000 Mbps = 40 Gigabps (something neither SATA, EtherNet, USB, Fiber Channel, what have you ... can do) ... in both directions.
Its really all a matter what the consumer or the engineering department wants ... "or" being Exclusive Or, not and/or.
Of course they're competing. There is so much overlap in usage that competition can't be helped. They both compete with SATA in external storage.
This is the nature of the beast. It has more than one action.
FW 3200 has NOT been out for months. The spec was released, as was the USB 3 spec, several months ago. Please get your facts straight.
iIT SOUNDED SO COOL >>>>out for months !!!!
Apple techies tell me that fire wire will be gone in a few years. Apple wants to be mainstream .
The side of a laptop is the most expensive real estate in the world . Staying on the side is no easy feat .
iIT SOUNDED SO COOL >>>>out for months !!!!
Apple techies tell me that fire wire will be gone in a few years. Apple wants to be mainstream .
Apple Techs to avoid taking advice from IMO. If Apple wanted FW gone they wouldn't have added FW back to the Macbook pro.
Jesus how many freakin' times does a person have to explain things to people with thick craniums.
USB - host based. Requires a computer in the chain and will inherently use more CPU
Firewire- peer to peer connection that offers low latency without the need for a computer inline.
As FastEddy says the two connection types are complementary as much as they compete. There's no value in standardizing on USB IMO.
" ... the two connection types are complementary as much as they compete. ..."
" ... knew Firewire was good, but wow! ~5GB per second? ..."
Of course, of course ... Yes these all compete for desktop connections. And for the consumer desktop USB is dominant, understandable.
Best performance over short distances = less than 10 feet = SATA.
Universal appeal, drives, burners, mice, keyboards over short distances less than 10 feet = USB.
Best performance over extended lengths > 30 feet = FireWire.
Best performance for specific scenarios like co-processing, multi-processing = FireWire.
===
FW800 = ~ 800 mbps = ~ 0.8 gbps.
FW3200 = ~ 3.2 gbps
16 channel multiplexed FW3200 = 16 times ~3.2 gbps = very approximately 40 gbps = very experimental using multiple sources, prototype chip sets, multiple laser transceivers of different color pairs = not nearly ready for prime time ... but it works.
Apple Techs to avoid taking advice from IMO. If Apple wanted FW gone they wouldn't have added FW back to the Macbook pro.
Jesus how many freakin' times does a person have to explain things to people with thick craniums.
USB - host based. Requires a computer in the chain and will inherently use more CPU
Firewire- peer to peer connection that offers low latency without the need for a computer inline.
As FastEddy says the two connection types are complementary as much as they compete. There's no value in standardizing on USB IMO.
USB CPU consumption used to be an issue, but I can't say I recall it being a problem lately. All this peer controller does for most people is increase the device cost. FW 800 across the product line will probably help availability in the short term, but other than for specialized needs, I wonder how FW will fare.
USB CPU consumption used to be an issue, but I can't say I recall it being a problem lately. All this peer controller does for most people is increase the device cost.
Yes but it enables hardware features that Professionals need like Pro Canon Cameras with powered FW for attaching drives and accessories.
Almost invariably the people saying "Firewire is going to go away" are oblivious to the penetration of FW within Pro Audio and Video verticals.
Will FW 3200 see the light of day? Hopefully.
I'm happy to see both but USB isn't going to eradicate the need for Firewire anytime soon
Yes but it enables hardware features that Professionals need like Pro Canon Cameras with powered FW for attaching drives and accessories.
Almost invariably the people saying "Firewire is going to go away" are oblivious to the penetration of FW within Pro Audio and Video verticals.
Will FW 3200 see the light of day? Hopefully.
I'm happy to see both but USB isn't going to eradicate the need for Firewire anytime soon
That's why I said "most people". Most people don't do pro video.
Yes but it enables hardware features that Professionals need like Pro Canon Cameras with powered FW for attaching drives and accessories.
Almost invariably the people saying "Firewire is going to go away" are oblivious to the penetration of FW within Pro Audio and Video verticals.
Will FW 3200 see the light of day? Hopefully.
I'm happy to see both but USB isn't going to eradicate the need for Firewire anytime soon
Yes, they said the same thing about RS-232, but where is that today?
Even on the few pieces of equipment that still have it, it's almost never used.
An insignificant issue = USB has its own 32 bit processor connected to the desktop computer / CPU host bus, so performance degradation, if noticeable, of the CPU and bus is pretty much same, same compared to other interfaces like EtherNet and FireWire or whatever. Thus CPU performance through modern USB 1.1, 2.0 or 3.x is not an issue. (The older Apple keyboard/mouse interfaces did have a small problem, a performance issue, being 8 bit, but not any of the new stuff.)
" ... Will FW 3200 see the light of day? ..."
FW3200 is on the lab bench, anyway. Texas Instruments is "sampling" the chips to interested manufacturers. Note that "pure" FireWire to fiber optic interface is a reality ... there just needs to be customers interested in peer to peer over distance at speeds greater than any other hardware protocol. Apple invented FireWire ... but they "don't talk about future products".
" ... Yes, they said the same thing about RS-232, but where is that today? ..."
Well, it is still the interface of choice in oil field exploration = long lines to sensors that are relatively lightning strike resistant. If you have ever seen oil field exploration in action like in the Great Plains of South Dakota = six or so, five hundred foot long, twisted pair with shield copper connectors (just like antenna) feeding a bunch of RS-232 audio sensors ("dirt sonar"), laid out in a big circle with the engineer and his computer in the center ... well, lightning strike is the most significant cause of death among these oil field engineers, so they all see RS-232 as the "fuse" in the circuit.
And there is a whole bunch of factory floor equipment that is interfaced via RS-232 ... programmable industrial sewing machines, to name one category.
" ... Yes, they said the same thing about RS-232, but where is that today? ..."
Well, it is still the interface of choice in oil field exploration = long lines to sensors that are relatively lightning strike resistant. If you have every seen oil field exploration in action like in the Great Plains of South Dakota, six or so, five hundred foot long twisted pair with shield copper connectors feeding a bunch of RS-232 audio sensors ... well, lightning strike is the most significant cause of death among these oil field engineers, so they all see RS-232 as the "fuse" in the circuit.
And there is a whole bunch of factory floor equipment that is interfaced via RS-232 ... programmable industrial sewing machines, to name one category.
Those are important fields, but they are pretty well served with devices designed for rugged use. Factory lines also have their own communication standards too. For hobbyist use, I'm content with a USB to RS232 adapter. It worked pretty well when I was using it. I even have a Bluetooth to RS-232 adapter, I never used it though.
I would think that optical might be more desirable where lightning strikes were a concern.
Those are important fields, but they are pretty well served with devices designed for rugged use. Factory lines also have their own communication standards too. For hobbyist use, I'm content with a USB to RS232 adapter. It worked pretty well when I was using it. I even have a Bluetooth to RS-232 adapter, I never used it though.
I would think that optical might be more desirable where lightning strikes were a concern.
In many of these cases, even where fasteddie is mentioning, 232 has long been replaced by 485.
but then again, even that's dying out in the oil industry and other places. I have a number of pieces of older pro video and audio decks I never parted with. They have them. Few modern units do though.
SDI replaced much of this years ago on the high end. Some of my stuff has SDI for high end use, 232 or 485 for control (some have 232 and 485), and one also has FW400 for low end video in.
I haven't used these things for years, they're in plastic covered boxes in the attic, along with my computer collection.
I'm not so sure. It still costs more, and I'm seeing newer boards from the major third party board manufacturers not including them on any other than their performance enthusiast boards.
The need for FW is rapidly diminishing. That doesn't mean that no one will want it for a time yet, but most people won't.
+1. I think in 5 years time we'll see no more FW.
+1. I think in 5 years time we'll see no more FW.
Apple screwed itself. Again.
Just like with the digital camera, the PDA, the PC itself, etc.
FW can be used between devices with no need for a computer in between and it is extremely reliable in terms of speed. I think it'll be around for a while but be seen on less PCs, particularly laptops.
Hey FastEddy are you in a profession that works in the "field"? Might I ask what you do? That's interesting to hear about lighting! I am an environmental scientist and I have to say serial and parallel are widely used on field equipment. Like water quality equipment like YSI, Quanta, etc. Perhaps it is more reliable than USB or FW or something. Of course in the office a USB adapter usually ends up being used anyway.
Apple screwed itself. Again.
Just like with the digital camera, the PDA, the PC itself, etc.
FW can be used between devices with no need for a computer in between and it is extremely reliable in terms of speed. I think it'll be around for a while but be seen on less PCs, particularly laptops.
Hey FastEddy are you in a profession that works in the "field"? Might I ask what you do? That's interesting to hear about lighting! I am an environmental scientist and I have to say serial and parallel are widely used on field equipment. Like water quality equipment like YSI, Quanta, etc. Perhaps it is more reliable than USB or FW or something. Of course in the office a USB adapter usually ends up being used anyway.
The promise of FW to FW devices way back in the beginning seemed to be a good one. Why? Because computers cost even more than they do now, and were far far slower in speed as well as capacity in RAM, HDDs etc.
But that promise was never realized. I tried to get video to video to work well, but even with pro level equipment, it was a waste of time. That was a big selling point for the average person though, and that was a total loss.
That was the main point. the other was speed, and the last was better IQ for video streaming.
But, for most users, the USB 2 that came out later was good enough, The video streaming aspects turned out to only matter to pros, who had and have better solutions in the high end, with the various implementations of SDI over the years.
It turns out that for most uses, we do need a computer anyway. For external drives, USB 2 is again fast enough for most people. But USB 3 will be out shortly and the new SATA controllers will be as well.
While FW will live on for some things here and there, the real question is whether it will be important enough to supply on a computer in another two years.
I don't think it will. I did say that Apple got rid of it too early, and indeed, they did bring it back.
I know that some people cry that their legacy devices won't work, but thats just the way it goes. I've got plenty of stuff that's gone the way of the dinosaur. I don't cry over it. I just shrug, and get new stuff.