USB 3.0 to challenge Firewire
So says Charles Moore, who got it from Slashdot.
Is this report true? Think of how fast our keyboards will be now!
Does Firewire have a prayer against this new tech? Is there even a point to Apple trying to extend it, or do you think they should just work with Intel on USB from here on?
Is this report true? Think of how fast our keyboards will be now!
Does Firewire have a prayer against this new tech? Is there even a point to Apple trying to extend it, or do you think they should just work with Intel on USB from here on?
Comments
So says Charles Moore, who got it from Slashdot.
Is this report true? Think of how fast our keyboards will be now!
Does Firewire have a prayer against this new tech? Is there even a point to Apple trying to extend it, or do you think they should just work with Intel on USB from here on?
I brought this subject up five years ago...
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=19243
IMHO, FireWire lost the battle when Apple dropped it from its iPod line. FireWire = BetaMax
Dave
USB is all about a collection of devices talking to a single "host" (computer). If data should go from device A to device B it must go to the computer, then back. This is fundamental to USB. But on FireWire all devices are peers, and so data can go from one harddrive to another. There is even provisions in the FireWire spec for the FireWire system to write data in to a memory space directly (being steered by a driver, but not writing through the driver). This all means that data transfer can be much faster.
FireWire has provisions for a device to request dedicated bandwidth. That means that if you are going to be streaming video from one device to another it will have an open channel to do so without having to constantly fight for space to transmit. USB does not do this, but operates like Ethernet where you grab the channel and hold onto it until you take a break. This makes USB a really bad choice for audio devices, and a bad choice for fast hard drives and video. For "removable storage" it is still fine, as your expectations for it are lower.
Note that while adding more speed might alleviate these problems (it is not going to do it for the audio side thought), it will not solve them completely. These are part-and-parcel with the fundamental design of FireWire and USB, and I am only touching on the ones that are beneficial for FireWire here, there are advantages to the USB design (primarily in reducing the cost of devices).
My only concern is if I'm still using my current iMac will I still be able to buy a camcorder that would have Firewire support or if not would there be USB 2 camcorders that would even remotely allow the transfer speeds I get currentl with my current camcorder.
...
IMHO, FireWire lost the battle when Apple dropped it from its iPod line. FireWire = BetaMax
...
Even on your planet where the iPod was the killer app for FireWire, it will only the killer app for the Mac version of the iPod. FireWire maybe exclusively a computer peripheral cable on your planet, but its uses on Earth are more diverse. Every high-definition TV settop box and most mini DV and HDV camcorders feature FireWire. The HD settop boxes are required by law to feature FireWire ports. On this planet, at least, FireWire penetration will continue to increase as digital television replaces analog TV.
IEEE 1394b (firewire) is used in military aircraft, where weight savings are desired; even four pairs of wires, to permit multiple redundancy, are far lighter than hundreds of discrete wires. Developed for use as the data bus on the F-22 Raptor, it is also used on the F-35 Lightning II.[13] NASA's Space Shuttle also uses IEEE 1394b to monitor debris (foam, ice) which may hit the vehicle during launch.[13]. This standard should not be confused with the unrelated MIL-STD-1394B.
firewire has lots of uses you may not know about.
Plus there is firewire 800 (c)
It's difficult to think of applications that couldn't be done by USB3.0.
Shame because I'm a great fan of Firewire.
can you boot from a usb 3.0 drive?, if not i stay firewire
On an Intel Mac you can boot from a USB 2 external drive.
FireWire will always be better than USB for many types of purposes unless they fundamentally change USB (does not sound like they are doing so for 3.0). This is for a variety of reasons, but the big ones are:
USB is all about a collection of devices talking to a single "host" (computer). If data should go from device A to device B it must go to the computer, then back. This is fundamental to USB. But on FireWire all devices are peers, and so data can go from one harddrive to another. There is even provisions in the FireWire spec for the FireWire system to write data in to a memory space directly (being steered by a driver, but not writing through the driver). This all means that data transfer can be much faster.
FireWire has provisions for a device to request dedicated bandwidth. That means that if you are going to be streaming video from one device to another it will have an open channel to do so without having to constantly fight for space to transmit. USB does not do this, but operates like Ethernet where you grab the channel and hold onto it until you take a break. This makes USB a really bad choice for audio devices, and a bad choice for fast hard drives and video. For "removable storage" it is still fine, as your expectations for it are lower.
Note that while adding more speed might alleviate these problems (it is not going to do it for the audio side thought), it will not solve them completely. These are part-and-parcel with the fundamental design of FireWire and USB, and I am only touching on the ones that are beneficial for FireWire here, there are advantages to the USB design (primarily in reducing the cost of devices).
Those uses and reasons are irrelevant to consumers. Totally irrelevant.
USB has won the PC connectivity battle. To think otherwise is kind of naive. Firewire, however, is more useful for industrial purposes, since it has a much more sophisticates and powerful MAC. Firewire over CAT5 and Coax are on the way, and should revitalize FW in several key markets. Namely, expect to see an uprated FW used [finally] for AV connectivity in set top boxes.
I agree. Firewire has been on its way out since Apple dropped it from iPod. It's just a matter of time for consumers.
Firewire is kinda bulky regarding port size and cables and I've never noticed a difference in performance compared with USB2. I wonder if they'll even be able to fit a firewire port onto a 0.5" thin laptop.
It will have to stay for a while due to camcorders etc. but I'd welcome a move to a universal standard like USB 3.
However, I can't see Jobs including 4 different types of IO ports (USB 2/3, FW, FW800, eSata) on his machines.
I think something will have to be dropped. Will it be FW400 or FW800?
The only problem I see with firewire is that it is a little bit pricey, but this would change if it was used more often in consumer products too.
Apple should really have pushed FireWire 800 from the off. It is a really great technology and certainly out performs USB in so many ways. PC boxen manufacturers got the jump on Apple with USB 2. A great pity really...
Apple should not have put a charge on the use of the FW name and logo which lead to a splintering of the brand identity with others using their own home grown names or just the spec name. They also should have pushed harder to bring the cost down and lobbied more for adoption of the original spec as well as the updated FW 800 spec in AV products such as amplifiers, TV's (lower end ones which would have boosted the acceptance of the standard). It also would have helped if they "finalized" their PVR software in the FW development kit so that they could advertise with the OS that you can hook a Mac up to your FW equipped TV or set top box and record directly to the Mac without the need for a DVR or even a tuner in the Mac which just writes the mpeg stream directly to disk.
FireWire will always be better than USB for many types of purposes unless they fundamentally change USB (does not sound like they are doing so for 3.0). This is for a variety of reasons, but the big ones are:
USB is all about a collection of devices talking to a single "host" (computer). If data should go from device A to device B it must go to the computer, then back. This is fundamental to USB. But on FireWire all devices are peers, and so data can go from one harddrive to another. There is even provisions in the FireWire spec for the FireWire system to write data in to a memory space directly (being steered by a driver, but not writing through the driver). This all means that data transfer can be much faster.
FireWire has provisions for a device to request dedicated bandwidth. That means that if you are going to be streaming video from one device to another it will have an open channel to do so without having to constantly fight for space to transmit. USB does not do this, but operates like Ethernet where you grab the channel and hold onto it until you take a break. This makes USB a really bad choice for audio devices, and a bad choice for fast hard drives and video. For "removable storage" it is still fine, as your expectations for it are lower.
Note that while adding more speed might alleviate these problems (it is not going to do it for the audio side thought), it will not solve them completely. These are part-and-parcel with the fundamental design of FireWire and USB, and I am only touching on the ones that are beneficial for FireWire here, there are advantages to the USB design (primarily in reducing the cost of devices).
It doesn't matter how good firewire is if the devices disappear. Even Sony, who pushed firewire almost as hard as Apple us starting to pull support
I brought this subject up five years ago...
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=19243
IMHO, FireWire lost the battle when Apple dropped it from its iPod line. FireWire = BetaMax
Dave
What happened to all those people that posted in the forums back then. Everyone that replied to your thread had so many posts (no one under 1k)
What happened to all those people that posted in the forums back then. Everyone that replied to your thread had so many posts (no one under 1k)
nevermind, i just realized that although those posts were 5 years old, the # of posts are to date