OK, I will be the second person to point out that Macs do support USB 2.0 in the same ways PCs do, you can buy a card and add it. See above for the link.
If people are asking [or complaining] why Apple doesn't integrate it, I don't think they have much of a point for the simple reason that:
1) it is far from standard on OEM PCs yet
2) it was designed by Intel to compete with FireWire
<strong>OK, I will be the second person to point out that Macs do support USB 2.0 in the same ways PCs do, you can buy a card and add it. See above for the link.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the consumer Apple line doesn't exist to you because neither the imac nor the iBook can accept a USB 2 card and that is the exact market USB 2 is made for.
USB 2 wants to be on everything, but Apple doesn't want to nurse USB 2 quite yet. Why would Apple put USB 2 on its products when FireWire is almost as fast and currently popular. Until there is a replacement for the current FireWire, Apple would only be making FireWire less popular in the long run by introducing USB 2 on its machines.
Yes Applenut because every consumer Mac user in the world owns only an iMac or iBook, none of them bought PCI Performas or low end PowerMacs at any point that they still use.
And those companies selling USB 2.0 cards actually will turn you down if you do not show your "I am a pro Mac user card" because USB 2.0 is a consumer technology.
<strong>I hope Apple don't adopt USB2. Simply, although USB and Firewire arn't direct competitiors, USB2.0 IS more of a competitor to Firewire. If it wasn;t for apple, USB might have been much slower off the ground, Given that most people dont need Firewire2, USB2 might be good enough to stop manufacturers developing Firewire peripherals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i share your analysis . Apple will say : we don't need USB 2 : firewire is better.
<strong>Yes Applenut because every consumer Mac user in the world owns only an iMac or iBook, none of them bought PCI Performas or low end PowerMacs at any point that they still use.
And those companies selling USB 2.0 cards actually will turn you down if you do not show your "I am a pro Mac user card" because USB 2.0 is a consumer technology.
Some one please pass the pipe at this point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh what? you're saying that the lack of USB 2 on Apple's hardware is justified because 5+ year old macs can accept a card and that pro machines can?
obviously someone has passed the pipe because that was just dumb
Actually I was referring to the pipe you must have been using, it was more sarcasm.
Applenut,
My point was [since you couldn't pick up on it before] that the 25 million or so estimated [by Apple] Mac users do not predominately have iMacs [estimated at about 6 million]. Most [19 million] have something else. So 19 million minus Cube users are supported by 3rd party upgrades just fine.
And since 460Mbps [USB 2.0] is equal in performance to 400Mbps [FireWire] [note megabits not megabytes] and there are a lot of FireWire devices and few USB 2.0 devices, I don't know why Apple needs to integrate it into an iMac.
I can't see a reason that Apple would endorse a competitor's product [USB 2.0 is made by Intel] when they have a very similar and superior product of their own that has greater versatility, market share, and developer support.
[quote]Actually I was referring to the pipe you must have been using, it was more sarcasm.<hr></blockquote>
you're not very good at sarcasm.
[quote]
My point was [since you couldn't pick up on it before] that the 25 million or so estimated [by Apple] Mac users do not predominately have iMacs [estimated at about 6 million]. Most [19 million] have something else. So 19 million minus Cube users are supported by 3rd party upgrades just fine.<hr></blockquote>
what? yea, I'm sure the guy using an LII is just dieing to get his hands on a USB 2 device
The majority of macs in use TODAY are 1997 and up. the majority of the sales from 97 to today are consumer machines without any expansion options besides ram. Not to mention that USB 2 would be next to useless on 90 percent of the hardware made before 1996 so you're number of 19 million quickly diminishes, no?
this is just common sense here and you can't get it. but keep flinging insults. it's getting you far
[quote]
And since 460Mbps [USB 2.0] is equal in performance to 400Mbps [FireWire] [note megabits not megabytes] and there are a lot of FireWire devices and few USB 2.0 devices, I don't know why Apple needs to integrate it into an iMac.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying they should. Actually I am against it until Apple gets Firewire 2 out the doors. My original point (which you didn't pick up on) was that peripheral connectivity should not seperate product lines. The original post I responded to stated that the PowerMacs would likely have USB 2 while the imacs would remain with USB 1.2. and all I said was that that was dumb.
[quote]
I can't see a reason that Apple would endorse a competitor's product [USB 2.0 is made by Intel] when they have a very similar and superior product of their own that has greater versatility, market share, and developer support.<hr></blockquote>
market share and developer growth? not to sure about that.
why should they support? Because Apple needs to support industry standards. USB 2 is becoming an industry standard and is just a logical improvement upon USB 1.2. There is no reason Apple should NOT use it. They just have to wait till Firewire gets bumped.
Interestingly, I just read the other day that Microsoft is pushing IEEE1394 over USB2. I thought I had read that XP doesn't include USB2 support out-of-the-box?
IEEE1394 is a better protocol for data streaming applications, which is why the DV people like it better than USB2. 1394b also significantly improves bandwidth, well beyond what USB2 can do. USB2 also has the problem that USB1 devices on a USB2 bus consume a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth.
What are the compelling reasons in favor of adding USB2 right now to new Macs? Isn't regular USB fast enough for keyboards, mice, and floppy drives? And isn't Firewire good enough for external hard drives, CDR drives, tape drives, and other peripherals?
Any benefit to adding USB2 at this time is, I feel, overridden by Apple's wish to see Firewire succeed. I say forget about USB2 unless more devices are made that utilize it.
Comments
If people are asking [or complaining] why Apple doesn't integrate it, I don't think they have much of a point for the simple reason that:
1) it is far from standard on OEM PCs yet
2) it was designed by Intel to compete with FireWire
3) Third parties are supplying it.
<strong>OK, I will be the second person to point out that Macs do support USB 2.0 in the same ways PCs do, you can buy a card and add it. See above for the link.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the consumer Apple line doesn't exist to you because neither the imac nor the iBook can accept a USB 2 card and that is the exact market USB 2 is made for.
USB 2 wants to be on everything, but Apple doesn't want to nurse USB 2 quite yet. Why would Apple put USB 2 on its products when FireWire is almost as fast and currently popular. Until there is a replacement for the current FireWire, Apple would only be making FireWire less popular in the long run by introducing USB 2 on its machines.
?? Whats that... you're waiting for a 20000dpi mouse....ooookkkkkk
And those companies selling USB 2.0 cards actually will turn you down if you do not show your "I am a pro Mac user card" because USB 2.0 is a consumer technology.
Some one please pass the pipe at this point?
<strong>I hope Apple don't adopt USB2. Simply, although USB and Firewire arn't direct competitiors, USB2.0 IS more of a competitor to Firewire. If it wasn;t for apple, USB might have been much slower off the ground, Given that most people dont need Firewire2, USB2 might be good enough to stop manufacturers developing Firewire peripherals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i share your analysis . Apple will say : we don't need USB 2 : firewire is better.
<strong>Yes Applenut because every consumer Mac user in the world owns only an iMac or iBook, none of them bought PCI Performas or low end PowerMacs at any point that they still use.
And those companies selling USB 2.0 cards actually will turn you down if you do not show your "I am a pro Mac user card" because USB 2.0 is a consumer technology.
Some one please pass the pipe at this point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh what? you're saying that the lack of USB 2 on Apple's hardware is justified because 5+ year old macs can accept a card and that pro machines can?
obviously someone has passed the pipe because that was just dumb
Applenut,
My point was [since you couldn't pick up on it before] that the 25 million or so estimated [by Apple] Mac users do not predominately have iMacs [estimated at about 6 million]. Most [19 million] have something else. So 19 million minus Cube users are supported by 3rd party upgrades just fine.
And since 460Mbps [USB 2.0] is equal in performance to 400Mbps [FireWire] [note megabits not megabytes] and there are a lot of FireWire devices and few USB 2.0 devices, I don't know why Apple needs to integrate it into an iMac.
I can't see a reason that Apple would endorse a competitor's product [USB 2.0 is made by Intel] when they have a very similar and superior product of their own that has greater versatility, market share, and developer support.
Maybe you can explain it to me.
you're not very good at sarcasm.
[quote]
My point was [since you couldn't pick up on it before] that the 25 million or so estimated [by Apple] Mac users do not predominately have iMacs [estimated at about 6 million]. Most [19 million] have something else. So 19 million minus Cube users are supported by 3rd party upgrades just fine.<hr></blockquote>
what? yea, I'm sure the guy using an LII is just dieing to get his hands on a USB 2 device
The majority of macs in use TODAY are 1997 and up. the majority of the sales from 97 to today are consumer machines without any expansion options besides ram. Not to mention that USB 2 would be next to useless on 90 percent of the hardware made before 1996 so you're number of 19 million quickly diminishes, no?
this is just common sense here and you can't get it. but keep flinging insults. it's getting you far
[quote]
And since 460Mbps [USB 2.0] is equal in performance to 400Mbps [FireWire] [note megabits not megabytes] and there are a lot of FireWire devices and few USB 2.0 devices, I don't know why Apple needs to integrate it into an iMac.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying they should. Actually I am against it until Apple gets Firewire 2 out the doors. My original point (which you didn't pick up on) was that peripheral connectivity should not seperate product lines. The original post I responded to stated that the PowerMacs would likely have USB 2 while the imacs would remain with USB 1.2. and all I said was that that was dumb.
[quote]
I can't see a reason that Apple would endorse a competitor's product [USB 2.0 is made by Intel] when they have a very similar and superior product of their own that has greater versatility, market share, and developer support.<hr></blockquote>
market share and developer growth? not to sure about that.
why should they support? Because Apple needs to support industry standards. USB 2 is becoming an industry standard and is just a logical improvement upon USB 1.2. There is no reason Apple should NOT use it. They just have to wait till Firewire gets bumped.
IEEE1394 is a better protocol for data streaming applications, which is why the DV people like it better than USB2. 1394b also significantly improves bandwidth, well beyond what USB2 can do. USB2 also has the problem that USB1 devices on a USB2 bus consume a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth.
Any benefit to adding USB2 at this time is, I feel, overridden by Apple's wish to see Firewire succeed. I say forget about USB2 unless more devices are made that utilize it.