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.
I'm thinking of things like printers and scanners.
Or being able to sync your iPhone or iPod without having to charge it (and thus messing up your battery maintenance plan).
Right now, we use BlueTooth for a lot of this, but Wireless USB is supposed to be faster. So, the charging methodology would be the same as for BT.
Who uses Bluetooth for printing and scanning? Maybe BT is used for printing from PDAs and cell phones when there is nothing complex to print. but I'd hate to use it for anything else!
I don't see what this fascination with wireless is all about. Your printer and scanner are nearby, why would you want to have a less reliable way to use them?
I'm thinking of things like printers and scanners.
Or being able to sync your iPhone or iPod without having to charge it (and thus messing up your battery maintenance plan).
Right now, we use BlueTooth for a lot of this, but Wireless USB is supposed to be faster. So, the charging methodology would be the same as for BT.
Printing and scanning can already be done over WiFi right now if it has to be wireless. You'll probably be waiting a couple years to get a decent selection of devices compatible with Wireless USB.
I don't think special battery maintenance is nearly as important now, not in the sense that you have to discharge it completely every time, Apple recommends a complete discharge only once a month.
I think Apple's going to "flip a switch" and the iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook Pro will suddenly become FW3200 </dream>
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Apple's very conservative this way. I'm not so sure they would want to be the first, esp. if the costs are higher.
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple's very conservative this way. I'm not so sure they would want to be the first, esp. if the costs are higher.
In addition, they may actually favor USB 3.
I wonder if there is much point to extending Firewire, double the doubt if that's going to be their attitude. They expanded 800 to the rest of their product line way too late for it to matter in terms of keeping it viable. FW devices are not easy to find in retail, 800 is almost online-only. But if Apple won't push FW3200, I just don't see anyone else supporting it at all.
I wonder if there is much point to extending Firewire, double the doubt if that's going to be their attitude. They expanded 800 to the rest of their product line way too late for it to matter in terms of keeping it viable. FW devices are not easy to find in retail, 800 is almost online-only. But if Apple won't push FW3200, I just don't see anyone else supporting it at all.
Apple has always acted ambivalent about FW, even in the very beginning. It seems to me that once their big plans for it fell through, with their biggest backer, Intel, deciding, early, to not want to charge the $0.25 per port fee, and deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
FW has lagged behind their once ambitious schedule. It took too long to get 400 up and running properly. 800 should have been out four years ago, 1600 two years ago, and we should have seen 3200 sometime in 2009.
Apple's failure to get the HDD manufacturers on board with native devices also came as a hard blow. FW has never been all that satisfactory for storage. It's been a compromise at best, with mediocre reliability.
While effective speeds have been significantly higher than USB 2, the popularity of the latter for external storage shows just how much most people care.
My San Disk FW 800 CF card reader gives about 40MB/s from an Extreme IV card, while a USB 2 reader only gives about 25MB/s. But do most people care enough to spend the extra $25 for the reader, even if they're using Macs with FW 800? No. Most will save the $25 and go the slower route. With PCs without the FW on the mobo, people are even less likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of spending $25 for a FW 800 card.
USB 3 will be more expensive than USB 2, but It will still be found on all mobo's by 2011.
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
Thank Apple for the built in dictionary , for those moments when you're like huh?. Nice job Wordsmith
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
Yes and speaking of ports I believe that both FW and USB have let consumers down with flaky daisychaining (FW) and USB hubs that simply do not want to work with some devices. The only choice is once again port proliferation on the computer for stability. Sigh.
Thank Apple for the built in dictionary , for those moments when you're like huh?. Nice job Wordsmith
I thought the sentence made sense. But, now I see how it can be misconstrued.
I should have simplified it a bit.
"Once their biggest backer, Intel, quickly lost interest, not wanting to charge the $0.025 ports fees, and deciding that it was inimical to their own interests, Apple saw their big plans for FW falling through. At that point, Apple lost interest.
Quote:
Yes and speaking of ports I believe that both FW and USB have let consumers down with flaky daisychaining (FW) and USB hubs that simply do not want to work with some devices. The only choice is once again port proliferation on the computer for stability. Sigh.
Yes, that's been a big problem for both. I've seen people claim they've had over a dozen devices connected and working well in a chain, but I've never seen it in "real" life, only in claims made online.
Apple has always acted ambivalent about FW, even in the very beginning. It seems to me that once their big plans for it fell through, with their biggest backer, Intel, deciding, early, to not want to charge the $0.25 per port fee, and deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
FW has lagged behind their once ambitious schedule. It took too long to get 400 up and running properly. 800 should have been out four years ago, 1600 two years ago, and we should have seen 3200 sometime in 2009.
Apple's failure to get the HDD manufacturers on board with native devices also came as a hard blow. FW has never been all that satisfactory for storage. It's been a compromise at best, with mediocre reliability.
While effective speeds have been significantly higher than USB 2, the popularity of the latter for external storage shows just how much most people care.
My San Disk FW 800 CF card reader gives about 40MB/s from an Extreme IV card, while a USB 2 reader only gives about 25MB/s. But do most people care enough to spend the extra $25 for the reader, even if they're using Macs with FW 800? No. Most will save the $25 and go the slower route. With PCs without the FW on the mobo, people are even less likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of spending $25 for a FW 800 card.
USB 3 will be more expensive than USB 2, but It will still be found on all mobo's by 2011.
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
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.
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.
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.
I thought the sentence made sense. But, now I see how it can be misconstrued.
It made total sense. It's just a word I had never seen before and happily found the definition using the built in dictionary. You used it correctly as far as I can tell. I just love words and so when new ones pop in I notice.
Comments
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.
I see that already.
No. It works over Ethernet.
Sure it does, but ethernet is no where near as plug and play as firewire
Sure it does, but ethernet is no where near as plug and play as firewire
Why not?
I plug the two machines into my network, and it works. Or I use a standard Ethernet cable into both for where there's no network, and it works.
How much easier does it have to get?
It can now be done with an external SATA drive with certain cards.
How would you handle power or charging?
It doesn't matter.
I'm thinking of things like printers and scanners.
Or being able to sync your iPhone or iPod without having to charge it (and thus messing up your battery maintenance plan).
Right now, we use BlueTooth for a lot of this, but Wireless USB is supposed to be faster. So, the charging methodology would be the same as for BT.
It doesn't matter.
I'm thinking of things like printers and scanners.
Or being able to sync your iPhone or iPod without having to charge it (and thus messing up your battery maintenance plan).
Right now, we use BlueTooth for a lot of this, but Wireless USB is supposed to be faster. So, the charging methodology would be the same as for BT.
Who uses Bluetooth for printing and scanning? Maybe BT is used for printing from PDAs and cell phones when there is nothing complex to print. but I'd hate to use it for anything else!
I don't see what this fascination with wireless is all about. Your printer and scanner are nearby, why would you want to have a less reliable way to use them?
It doesn't matter.
I'm thinking of things like printers and scanners.
Or being able to sync your iPhone or iPod without having to charge it (and thus messing up your battery maintenance plan).
Right now, we use BlueTooth for a lot of this, but Wireless USB is supposed to be faster. So, the charging methodology would be the same as for BT.
Printing and scanning can already be done over WiFi right now if it has to be wireless. You'll probably be waiting a couple years to get a decent selection of devices compatible with Wireless USB.
I don't think special battery maintenance is nearly as important now, not in the sense that you have to discharge it completely every time, Apple recommends a complete discharge only once a month.
USB 3.0 could be on Macs by this fall. Still no word on where Firewire 3200 is hiding.
I think Apple's going to "flip a switch" and the iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook Pro will suddenly become FW3200 </dream>
UBS 3 is overhyped.
I think those banking with them would agree.
I think those banking with them would agree.
Heh! Very good.
I think Apple's going to "flip a switch" and the iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook Pro will suddenly become FW3200 </dream>
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Apple's very conservative this way. I'm not so sure they would want to be the first, esp. if the costs are higher.
In addition, they may actually favor USB 3.
Not unless chipsets have secretly been in the wild. That being said, since the connectors are the same as FW800, all Apple would need to do is swap out the chipset and add new drivers.
Apple's very conservative this way. I'm not so sure they would want to be the first, esp. if the costs are higher.
In addition, they may actually favor USB 3.
I wonder if there is much point to extending Firewire, double the doubt if that's going to be their attitude. They expanded 800 to the rest of their product line way too late for it to matter in terms of keeping it viable. FW devices are not easy to find in retail, 800 is almost online-only. But if Apple won't push FW3200, I just don't see anyone else supporting it at all.
I wonder if there is much point to extending Firewire, double the doubt if that's going to be their attitude. They expanded 800 to the rest of their product line way too late for it to matter in terms of keeping it viable. FW devices are not easy to find in retail, 800 is almost online-only. But if Apple won't push FW3200, I just don't see anyone else supporting it at all.
Apple has always acted ambivalent about FW, even in the very beginning. It seems to me that once their big plans for it fell through, with their biggest backer, Intel, deciding, early, to not want to charge the $0.25 per port fee, and deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
FW has lagged behind their once ambitious schedule. It took too long to get 400 up and running properly. 800 should have been out four years ago, 1600 two years ago, and we should have seen 3200 sometime in 2009.
Apple's failure to get the HDD manufacturers on board with native devices also came as a hard blow. FW has never been all that satisfactory for storage. It's been a compromise at best, with mediocre reliability.
While effective speeds have been significantly higher than USB 2, the popularity of the latter for external storage shows just how much most people care.
My San Disk FW 800 CF card reader gives about 40MB/s from an Extreme IV card, while a USB 2 reader only gives about 25MB/s. But do most people care enough to spend the extra $25 for the reader, even if they're using Macs with FW 800? No. Most will save the $25 and go the slower route. With PCs without the FW on the mobo, people are even less likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of spending $25 for a FW 800 card.
USB 3 will be more expensive than USB 2, but It will still be found on all mobo's by 2011.
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
Thank Apple for the built in dictionary , for those moments when you're like huh?. Nice job Wordsmith
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
Yes and speaking of ports I believe that both FW and USB have let consumers down with flaky daisychaining (FW) and USB hubs that simply do not want to work with some devices. The only choice is once again port proliferation on the computer for stability. Sigh.
Thank Apple for the built in dictionary , for those moments when you're like huh?. Nice job Wordsmith
I thought the sentence made sense. But, now I see how it can be misconstrued.
I should have simplified it a bit.
"Once their biggest backer, Intel, quickly lost interest, not wanting to charge the $0.025 ports fees, and deciding that it was inimical to their own interests, Apple saw their big plans for FW falling through. At that point, Apple lost interest.
Yes and speaking of ports I believe that both FW and USB have let consumers down with flaky daisychaining (FW) and USB hubs that simply do not want to work with some devices. The only choice is once again port proliferation on the computer for stability. Sigh.
Yes, that's been a big problem for both. I've seen people claim they've had over a dozen devices connected and working well in a chain, but I've never seen it in "real" life, only in claims made online.
Apple has always acted ambivalent about FW, even in the very beginning. It seems to me that once their big plans for it fell through, with their biggest backer, Intel, deciding, early, to not want to charge the $0.25 per port fee, and deciding that FW was inimical to their own plans, Apple lost interest. I think they felt that they would get big bucks from this, and once they saw it wouldn't happen, they didn't care as much.
FW has lagged behind their once ambitious schedule. It took too long to get 400 up and running properly. 800 should have been out four years ago, 1600 two years ago, and we should have seen 3200 sometime in 2009.
Apple's failure to get the HDD manufacturers on board with native devices also came as a hard blow. FW has never been all that satisfactory for storage. It's been a compromise at best, with mediocre reliability.
While effective speeds have been significantly higher than USB 2, the popularity of the latter for external storage shows just how much most people care.
My San Disk FW 800 CF card reader gives about 40MB/s from an Extreme IV card, while a USB 2 reader only gives about 25MB/s. But do most people care enough to spend the extra $25 for the reader, even if they're using Macs with FW 800? No. Most will save the $25 and go the slower route. With PCs without the FW on the mobo, people are even less likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of spending $25 for a FW 800 card.
USB 3 will be more expensive than USB 2, but It will still be found on all mobo's by 2011.
The truth is that its performance will be more than good enough at a realistic transfer rate of over 400MB/s. Theoretical is 640MB/s. We may even see close to 500MB/s.
Most people will want an extra USB 3 port than a FW 1600 or 3200 one.
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.
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.
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.
I thought the sentence made sense. But, now I see how it can be misconstrued.
It made total sense. It's just a word I had never seen before and happily found the definition using the built in dictionary. You used it correctly as far as I can tell. I just love words and so when new ones pop in I notice.