Major Stakes? USB2.0 vs FireWire
Charles Haddad has penned an interesting and thought-provoking article for Business Week regarding the high-stakes game between USB 2.0 and Firewire. The upshot?
Intel is giving away USB 2.0 by putting it on the board, ensuring that it will soak the PC market thoroughly. This has happened in the past with other products, so FireWire really needs the combined support of the many manufacturers using the technology at present.
<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_9218.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_9218.htm</a>;
D
Intel is giving away USB 2.0 by putting it on the board, ensuring that it will soak the PC market thoroughly. This has happened in the past with other products, so FireWire really needs the combined support of the many manufacturers using the technology at present.
<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_9218.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_9218.htm</a>;
D
Comments
I also think that the reason Powermacs don't have an extra open drive bay is that Apple wants people to buy Firewire products....it's a not so sneaky way to promote Firewire, and of course Apple makes money on Firewire peripheral sales as well. But mostly Apple is trying to create a Firewire market by forcing Powermac buyers to buy external drives.
If Micro$oft did something like this, everyone would be calling for Gate's head on a plate.
Yeah...
...sure!!!
As soon as they get around the problem of it not being able to supply enough power to recharge as well a power items. Firewire has got more than a toe-hold on its current market as I don't see video camera's changinging their ouput port (FW, iLink) for a long time.
Hmm, extra speed/bandwidth on USB. I'd better get my 256,000dpi mouse ready
<strong>USB clearly needed a speed boost, but Firewire? I fail to see the practicle use for faster FW. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What about clustering and multiprocessing capabilities? These are inherent to the Mach kernel of MacOSX, and could be unleashed any time. More attractive than ever, now with the XServe. It only needs the proper drivers to be written, and a sufficent fast connection between the boxes, like FW2.
USB2 is backwards compatible, meaning that USB 1.1 devices can run out of a USB2 port. However, USB2 can only go as fast as the fastest device on its bus. So if you have 3 USB2 devices and one USB1.1 device all plugged into one controller, everytihng goes USB1.1 speeds.
1394b will be backwards compatible as well, but as far as I have read thus far it will not suffer from the same problem.
A 6 pin FireWire connector supplys enough power to run a hard drive comfortably. USB2 as far as I have read does not, and USB1.1 most certainly does not.
FireWire or iLink as it is called in the Camera world, is established and dug in. They would be foolish to change now because a lot (if not most) Video Editing Pros use Macs, and Macs use FireWire. Sony has FireWire on all of its computers and cameras. Sure, sony isnt the best for making Apple compatible products but the mere fact that they are one of FireWires biggest supporters speaks well of them.
FireWire can support high transfer rates over longer periods of time than USB2. In that respect the extra 80mbps is a virtual waste.
USB2 has been so very very slow to hit the market. It was first talked about when FireWire hit the mainstream, and the first computer I have seen with it on board (Compaq Presario 2800 (its a Canadian Model)) just came out.
Of course I could be wrong and USB2 might take over. I sure hope not though.
--PB
<strong>
What about clustering and multiprocessing capabilities? These are inherent to the Mach kernel of MacOSX, and could be unleashed any time. More attractive than ever, now with the XServe. It only needs the proper drivers to be written, and a sufficent fast connection between the boxes, like FW2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about clustering and multiprocessing capabilities? Most people could care less. It still remains a theoretical use that has limited appeal. Every consumer device you can buy for the computer is USB compatible. That is to say, every type of device. Firewire may not be removed from video cameras, but USB can be added to new ones just as easily as Firewire was. Does FW have some advantages right now? Sure it does. But USB2 is just one generation away from erasing those advantages, while FW is just one generation from being obselete.
There will one day be USB powered hard drives and Vcams. There will never be FW input devices and printers and such.
Wireless networking
Monitor
Local devices
Wired networking
The monitor port can carry enough info to power a HDTV. Or Super-Definition TV, yeha that's better.
Next down is wired networking - a SINGLE standard, able to carry an HDTV stream. This will handle most storage needs. And printers too.
Local devices - include EVERYTHING only a single computer can access. Speakers, mouse, keyboard, any other input devices... If you want a storage device to be only accessible by one computer, then here's an option.
Wireless networking. Useful for applications where you won't get enough bandwidth for even the Local devices bus to notice. like surfing the web. UNLESS Internet 2 gets afvailbale to us peons...
"Greedy" ummmm companies must make a profit to stay in business and please their shareholders. If this is "greedy" then most companies are as guilty.
[quote] I also think that the reason Powermacs don't have an extra open drive bay is that Apple wants people to buy Firewire products....it's a not so sneaky way to promote Firewire, and of course Apple makes money on Firewire peripheral sales as well. But mostly Apple is trying to create a Firewire market by forcing Powermac buyers to buy external drives.
<hr></blockquote>
Look at Steve's history. He's always preferred smaller computers(Next, G4 Cubes etc) I doubt that he has some diabolical plan to sell more FW drives.
[quote] USB clearly needed a speed boost, but Firewire? I fail to see the practicle use for faster FW. Video transfers in real time and hard drives don't seem to take full advantage of Firewire. <hr></blockquote>
Yes but you fail to realize that FW is not a Host Based system like USB. Therefore sure my FW might be sending Video but it might also be sending multitrack Audio and HD data at the same time. Bandwidth in not infinite and eventually with current FW you WILL hit the wall.
[quote] I see tomorows systems as having just one type of connection. USB2 has the potential to be truly universal. Firewire will never have that potential.
<hr></blockquote>
Again FW is a Hostless based system. I currently cannot connect two USB Devices together and have them communicate without a computer involved. There already exists devices that let you capture DV Video with no computer needed. FW also can prioritize certain streams so that no interruption are made( ie the difference between connecting continuous data like Audio versus packetized data)
[quote] What about clustering and multiprocessing capabilities? Most people could care less. <hr></blockquote>
You mean YOU could care less. There exist many potential uses for clustering and other forms of networking.
[quote]There will one day be USB powered hard drives and Vcams. There will never be FW input devices and printers and such <hr></blockquote>
Considering your lack of knowledge about the "Basics" of Firewire and your assumptions about what technologies are important to the masses I can only conclude that your "vision" does not have rational thinking as a foundation.
Firewire and USB can coexist together...FW allows devices to be strung together with auto ID selection and Hot Swap capability. FW2 will greatly enhance maximum cable length. FW support power for small devices(have you seen anything like the iPod for USB). I don't see FW going anywhere as a matter of fact go look at the future X86 motherboards coming from Computex and Firewire is on the board natively as is USB2.
Firewire 2.0/b (whatever) specifications we locked in this spring. It'll be hitting the market pretty soon.
Firewire 2 has a 150' (or something around there) range. Firewire 1 can be used for networking. Firewire 2 runs at 800 Mbps (FW 3 running at 1600 Mbps won't be far off becuase it's essentailly the same as 2 except speed). 800 Mbps with 150 range seems like a really attractive networking idea doesn't it? Firewire can also be "daisy chained" so that you don't need hubs as long as it's within 150', saves money. How much do ethernet cards cost (especially the 1000 Mbps)? Be nice if Apple could remove them (probalby off iMac/eMacs first) & save $$$. Some may say that you need ethernet at home for Cable modens & such but they have USB adapters for that, so really it's not needed. In the corporate world a USB ethernet card could also be used when required (unless of course they switch to a FW network, which graphic oriented businesses probably would).
Also, right now a lot of LAN's use Ethernet, although if Apple got rid of it and made AirPort cards standard, said LAN's could just as easily switch over to AirPort. But then consumers who could really go either way would still pay as much for it.
<strong>Cable/DSL modems are kinda fast for USB, and they're gonna keep getting faster each year (unlike regular modems which were limited to 53k by law), and since most are made for PC's (if OS X didn't have built-in PPPoE I'd be screwed), I doubt that they'll utilise FireWire/FW2 until it's standard on every PC--I think it's standard on every Sony Vaio, but my dad's new GateWay doesn't have it.
Also, right now a lot of LAN's use Ethernet, although if Apple got rid of it and made AirPort cards standard, said LAN's could just as easily switch over to AirPort. But then consumers who could really go either way would still pay as much for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even USB 1.1 has plenty of bandwidth to cover all Cable and DSl modems. A T1 is 1.544mbps throughput...this is a drop in the bucket to USB's 12mbsps or Firewires 400mbps.
Airport will never overtake a wired LAN which soon will be standardizing on Gigabit networking in a few years. I believe Wireless will be used in places that Wired access is prohibitively expensive to install.
USB's main weakness is the fact that a Computer is required to manage the connections. This makes it "dumb" compared to Firewire. Eventually I will not purchase a motherboard unless it has both connector types. My myself I'm not interested in a "one solution fits all" cable unless it's good.
You see, in the computer industry, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who ever said "that should be enough for anyone" was proved wrong and made a huge dork out of himself. In that respect, the faster firewire gets, the better.
Bill Gates said "640KB of RAM should be enough for anyone" back in the 80s, and back in the 40s, some guy from IBM, after having introduced the ENIAC (first computer) said " I guess there's a world market for about 6 computers".
I'll gladly add you statement "400mbps is enough" to those annals. Btw, I seriously doubt 400mbps would be enough to process real-time video in 5 or 10 years time...
G-News
<strong>Charles Haddad has penned an interesting and thought-provoking article for Business Week
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Statistically it had to happen eventually...
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>
Airport will never overtake a wired LAN which soon will be standardizing on Gigabit networking in a few years. I believe Wireless will be used in places that Wired access is prohibitively expensive to install.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wireless LANs are usually easier and less expensive to set up. Especially in older office/commercial space that doesn't already have cat 5 installed and in nearly all residences.
a friend of mine said earlier this year that she really thought "USB 2.0 was the future." She has also been 100% wrong in every other attempt to predict technological trends for as long as I have known her.
enough said.
The public needs to be shown that, and not in ads for FireWire itself, but in ads for products that use FireWire. In order to help this along, the name 'IEEE 1394' needs to be banished from the pages of computer publications, and Sony needs to be convinced to rectify the iLink schism upon the release of their first 1394b product.
1394b needs to be out there in all products - down to keyboards and mice if possible, and up to high end printers and storage devices. The idea of a 1394b mouse sounds silly, and that needs to be fixed by having such products. We don't see the USB mouse as being overkill, even though it is.
</silly activist talk>
Realistically though, USB 2.0 will proliferate, and FireWire will live on at the sidelines, largely because of an Apple decision (USB effectively released before FireWire).
</depressed talk>
Ultimately though, Apple needs to go with whatever they see as being the next big thing, just slightly before everyone else.
</pragmatic>
Clichés used: 'banished from the pages', 'at the sidelines', 'the next big thing'.
[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
<strong>FireWire needs to be aggressively marketed and improved now. I believe the public currently sees FireWire as a high-end only technology, which doesn't fit with common devices. FireWire and its successors appear to be in a position to provide connectivity for more types of devices than USB 2.0.
The public needs to be shown that, and not in ads for FireWire itself, but in ads for products that use FireWire. In order to help this along, the name 'IEEE 1394' needs to be banished from the pages of computer publications, and Sony needs to be convinced to rectify the iLink schism upon the release of their first 1394b product.
1394b needs to be out there in all products - down to keyboards and mice if possible, and up to high end printers and storage devices. The idea of a 1394b mouse sounds silly, and that needs to be fixed by having such products. We don't see the USB mouse as being overkill, even though it is.
</silly activist talk>
Realistically though, USB 2.0 will proliferate, and FireWire will live on at the sidelines, largely because of an Apple decision (USB effectively released before FireWire).
</depressed talk>
Ultimately though, Apple needs to go with whatever they see as being the next big thing, just slightly before everyone else.
</pragmatic>
Clichés used: 'banished from the pages', 'at the sidelines', 'the next big thing'.
[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is my point. It doesn't matter if FW is a better technology than USB. What matters is that USB is an entrenched technology on the consumer desktop. Not every will have a need for a FW device. But everyone with a computer will use and need USB enabled devices. A case for consumer need still has to be made for FW1. FW2 has no killer app for the consumer desktop. Maybe one will be created. But Apple will have to do a much better job making that case for FW2 than they did for FW1.
Remember the beta format? FW may end up being the Betamax of computer technology while USB will be like VHS. Only time will tell
If you think that it will, read the previous sentence. USB 2 does not work well for video. Yet. But, if future versions of USB do resolve the throughput and power supply issues, and USB 3 replaces FW2 in digital video Cams... Though I don't think it will...Entrenchment and such...Who cares? Seriously, who gives a rats @$$? I'd be thrilled if I could connect all of my devices through one supermegaconnectionofdeath(TM). If it's a superior technology, why not use it? If it does become the standard, Apple will support it. Just because Apple doesn't hold the patent on it, doesn't mean it's crap.
And guess where Apple is positioning the Macintosh? As part of the Digital Hub strategy. So... Apple planning to made FireWire an integral part of fitting the Macintosh into the Digital Hub strategy.
In other words, even if the PC industry decided to gone the way of phasing FireWire ports in the favor of stuff like USB 2.0 , FireWire already has a secure place in the Digital World.
Maybe... In this year MWNY, we will see a new Apple digital device that utilized FireWire's capabilities.
The iPod is a nice example on how useful FireWire is, only one port for power and data, I really like that!
Okay. There's an Apple FireWire data storage and sound output option, what's next? An Apple FireWire input digital device?
I seem to recall that Netscape OWNED the internet browser game back before this other company started giving one away for free.
Will the same thing happen for FireWire when Intel does virtually the same thing with USB 2? That's the real discussion here people, not the technical merits of either cabling system.
I'd agree that more devices that fully exploit the capabilities of FireWire need to be released, and they NEED to be released to the PC world as well, to ensure the preservation of FireWire's status as the best fast data cabling system available.
D
The iPod
Escient DVD Changers with FW
MLAN from Yamaha
Unibrain NAS, San and FW Networking
Focus Ehancements DV Capture Box sans "puter
DVD-Audio connectivity(they've ok'd FW as a connection capability providing encryption is used)
FW is positioning itself as a scaleable solution that can handle slow and fast devices without the headaches.
FW2 brings long capble lengths to it's users. USB2 is still limited in max cable length
So what that USB 2.0 is included on motherboards. Intel is shipping the 845g motherboards with USB2 and Firewire and 10/100 LAN all integrated.
FW2 will have a Killer app. It's speed coupled with it's cable lengths means that you could actually run FW2 within the walls of a house if need be for networking.