Strategically, I think Apple will hold off on USB 2 for at least 1 revision, if not forever, depending on how well USB 2 takes off.
Strategically, Apple needs Firewire to be more successful. Performance-wise, Apple doesn't need something that is a CPU-hog (USB2) in their machines. USB2 is just an attempt to kill firewire and was purposely made slightly faster (on paper) to make firewire look bad. It's just a competing technology that offers no benefits what-so-ever. Any device that needs the speed of USB2 will work better with Firewire and ordinary things like mice and keyboards are just fine with plain ol' USB.
If Apple's going to adopt any Intel Technology in the next PowerMac, I'd prefer it was AGP 8x instead of USB 2.
The main problem I see is that USB 2.0 is starting to be on EVERY PC. And if you don't have it, you can add it for about $29 US (4 port PCI card).
I was in Best Buy the other day and USB2.0 devices out numbered Firewire devices like 15 to 1 and they are CHEAP. 32x12x40 USB2.0 - $129. There was an entire isle with external storage. There were about 30 different USB2.0 devices (HD, CDR, etc) and about 2 or 3 Firewire drives. This kinda made me sick <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Firewire is so superior to USB2.0, yet since Intel is integrating USB2.0 into the motherboard and PC manufactures have to add Firewire as an add-on card... Well you know how that goes...
I?m just afraid PC makers will only add Firewire on a select few ?Video Editing? PC?s or as a build to order option. I don?t think Joe Consumer will care that USB2 is 480 and Firewire is 400? All he will care about is that USB2.0 came integrated with his bargain basement PC and Firewire didn?t? So what external device is he going to choose?
Joe SixPack has no idea whatsoever what FireWire is.
Heck most salesperson think it's only for DV Cams. I've met a few that thought I was an idiot for asking about FireWire CD-RWs
Not only has Apple got to get it's ass in gear and put FireWire2 on the front line *now*, it also has to market it better to VIA etc. so that PC users want it.
The added cost for USB2 would be minimal. The current chipset has been reimboursed countless times. Having FireWire, there is indeed no immediate reason to have a USB2 port, but there also isn't any reason *not* to have it . How many of us actually use the GB Ethernet port on our Macs?
I don't mind paying a premium for my Mac. I do however mind getting 2-3 year old tech in that machine.
Any hardware experts out there that can say what the difference is for the peripheral device? Is it cheaper or easier to use one or the other, Firewire or USB 2? This also influences what makers of scanners, printers, cameras, etc. might prefer. If USB 2 is chaaper to instal in a peripheral device, FireWire has two things working against it. On the other hand, if FireWire is a better deal for connected devices, that may help keep FireWire popular.
My concern is that FireWire could become just a niche market for some highend equipment that needs the advantages of FireWire. Does anyone know what it would take to do digital video over USB 2? If it can be done, it may not look good for FireWire's future. Possibly, we really need FireWire II or whatever it will be called, so there will be some overwhelming advantage to FireWire. FireWare will insure its future only when it can deliver advantages that far outstrip USB 2 for several categories of peripheral devices -- only when no one can say, "Well USB 2 is almost as good, and therefore it is good enough." FireWire needs clear advantages that people cannot ignore.
There is a lot of hype surrounding USB 2. We will have to wait until it makes it into customers hands before it can be declared a success.
The main problem I see with it, is the support cost from customers who do not understand why they get a low throughput because they have a keyboard and a USB 2.0 device sharing a port. From a customer support point of view, USB 2.0 is a nightmare. Already I know a lot of people that do not understand why their printer prints so slowly under USB 1.1. (With USB, you should always have peripherals of same speed share a port, whether it is 1.5(I think)Mbps USB 1.1, 12 Mbps USB 1.1 or 480Mbps USB 2.0).
For the CPU cycles, USB 2.0 actually takes less than USB 1.1, as it does use DMA.
Firewire is on all aspects a better design that USB 2.0, but then again, BETA was better than VHS.
I think Apple is going to push towards HDTV, the top speed of copper based Firewire will be 200MBps, fast enough for HTDV (the optical fiber version will be twice that).
Apple doesn't need USB 2. USB 1 is fine for low speed peripherals and firewire is good for high speed. I see no reason for apple to adopt USB 2. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Yes, but peripheral makers were waiting for USB 2. USB 1 is fine for low speed peripherals and firewire "WAS" good for high speed. I see no reason why peripheral makers will want to stay with Firewire.
I'm no expert, but Live video probably doesn't need a 2-3 Gig interface and will work with 480 Meg just fine.
Firewire is so superior to USB2.0, yet since Intel is integrating USB2.0 into the motherboard and PC manufactures have to add Firewire as an add-on card... Well you know how that goes...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firewire is more common than you think on PC's. My Dell has it (never thought I would be saying nice about Dell).
I was concerned about FireWire being replace by USB 2, but a couple things give me real hope. Yamaha has mLAN, which is an audio I/O that can replace MIDI and do a lot more, if I understand correctly. mLAN is a FireWire interconnection scheme. Now there is also FireBus, being put on new satellite receivers by Dish Network. It interconnects all the digital TV equipment, receiver, HDTV monitor, digital VCR, digital camcorder, and so on. It to is a FireWire interconnection. I believe that USB 2 could not replace FireWire in these application, because in USB, everything goes through the computer. It may be the difference that eventually gives FireWire the nod for the ultimate standard. With so much consumer and pro gear going FireWire, the price of chips will come down. FireWire can replace USB 2 in all cases, but not the other way around. I think possibly USB 2 will be the niche market someday, not FireWire. Who knows, just scanners and printers? Does anyone know whether FireWire gives external drives a performance advantage over USB 2? Maybe it will take the 1384b standard to realize enough advantage. I am not familiar with data transfer rates for drives.
<strong>I was concerned about FireWire being replace by USB 2, but a couple things give me real hope. Yamaha has mLAN, which is an audio I/O that can replace MIDI and do a lot more, if I understand correctly. mLAN is a FireWire interconnection scheme. Now there is also FireBus, being put on new satellite receivers by Dish Network. It interconnects all the digital TV equipment, receiver, HDTV monitor, digital VCR, digital camcorder, and so on. It to is a FireWire interconnection. I believe that USB 2 could not replace FireWire in these application, because in USB, everything goes through the computer. It may be the difference that eventually gives FireWire the nod for the ultimate standard. With so much consumer and pro gear going FireWire, the price of chips will come down. FireWire can replace USB 2 in all cases, but not the other way around. I think possibly USB 2 will be the niche market someday, not FireWire. Who knows, just scanners and printers? Does anyone know whether FireWire gives external drives a performance advantage over USB 2? Maybe it will take the 1384b standard to realize enough advantage. I am not familiar with data transfer rates for drives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The following is a repost I posted in the "Firwire 2 Speed?" thread a few days ago. Thought I may answer your question :
--------
Found this article on Firewire (400) vs USB 2.0. They tested external hard drives.
Firewire came out on top every time and in some cases 'smoked' USB 2.0.
Ha, looks like USB2 hits a wall at 14MB/sec (what?s that, like 112Mbps) Far cry from the 480Mbps they "claim". Where as Firewire was clearing 40MB/sec in some cases...
I know which one I would rather have. Let alone F2.
Interesting report. It seems that FireWire cannot quite handle the fastest data transfer rate, but easily keeps up with the long term sustained rate. USB 2, on the other hand, just can handle it at all, now, but it may be improved in the future if the author is to be believed. Once faster drives are available, FireWire 2 will further outrun USB 2, and will likely be the I/O of choice for drives. Good news. It looks like the future of FireWire on computers is ensured. Not only for hard drives, but audio and digital video work. I would like to see FireWire eventually take over the still camera field, and maybe it will if a big enough advantage is discovered.
No doubt USB 2 is here to stay, since it can be the only connection for a low end computer. After all, hard drives were sold that worked on USB 1.1 for those who didn't mind the poor performance. USB 2 is a vast improvement. USB 2 may dominate for scanners and printers in the future, and other devices that do not need the performance of FireWire 2. I cannot see any downside to putting USB 2 on a Mac if the cost is about the same as USB 1.1. Strange that Intel is not putting their chips out yet. Maybe they are trying to get more performance from them.
No USB 2 until Firewire 2 (or Gigawire, etc) appears.
At least on the Powermacs. They will be the first to need them both. Maybe its on this new rev coming in July, maybe not. But I imagine that however it works out, the Powermac to first see these improvements will see: 4 USB 2 ports, 2 on front, 2 on back; 1 Firewire2 port, on the back, and 2-3 Firewire (original) ports, with one on the front for easy FW Target Disk mode, iPod, etc.
Why do I bring up port distribution? Because unlike USB2, which is the same plug, and compatible, the new Firewire (this has been mentioned before) moves to a new plug. I hear 6-to-9, but I wouldn't necessarily see what the 9 would be. (If anyone knows what each wire does in the new Firewire, private msg me). So Apple will need to have both new AND old Firewire, so as to not leave current firewire devices in the dust.
For exactly this reason, the iMac may not get Firewire2 for a long time. It may get USB 2 first, since itd be a matter of some mobo chips and a new plug (though the same size/shape). Firewire 2 would be more complicated, as they would be larger/different, and would need to come along with the old Firewire. I imagine that in 1.5 years from the release (1 year frow now?) We may see a chassis refreshing of the iMac (like the Kihei iMac refreshed the G3 iMac). This would allow the proper changes and a good opportunity. Note that while the Powermac got Firewire in Jan 99, the iMac waited until Summer 2000 when the iMac DV was announced. The tech doesn't come to the consumer for a while.
So don't expect Firewire2 on the iMac for a while. Expect it on the PowerMac soon.
Likewise, don't expect a Firewire2 iPod ANY time soon. Its HD is currently not fast enough to make use of it, and it wouldn't allow current Mac users to buy a new iPod.
Comments
Strategically, Apple needs Firewire to be more successful. Performance-wise, Apple doesn't need something that is a CPU-hog (USB2) in their machines. USB2 is just an attempt to kill firewire and was purposely made slightly faster (on paper) to make firewire look bad. It's just a competing technology that offers no benefits what-so-ever. Any device that needs the speed of USB2 will work better with Firewire and ordinary things like mice and keyboards are just fine with plain ol' USB.
If Apple's going to adopt any Intel Technology in the next PowerMac, I'd prefer it was AGP 8x instead of USB 2.
am i right>?
am i right? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I was in Best Buy the other day and USB2.0 devices out numbered Firewire devices like 15 to 1 and they are CHEAP. 32x12x40 USB2.0 - $129. There was an entire isle with external storage. There were about 30 different USB2.0 devices (HD, CDR, etc) and about 2 or 3 Firewire drives. This kinda made me sick <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Firewire is so superior to USB2.0, yet since Intel is integrating USB2.0 into the motherboard and PC manufactures have to add Firewire as an add-on card... Well you know how that goes...
I?m just afraid PC makers will only add Firewire on a select few ?Video Editing? PC?s or as a build to order option. I don?t think Joe Consumer will care that USB2 is 480 and Firewire is 400? All he will care about is that USB2.0 came integrated with his bargain basement PC and Firewire didn?t? So what external device is he going to choose?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Heck most salesperson think it's only for DV Cams. I've met a few that thought I was an idiot for asking about FireWire CD-RWs
Not only has Apple got to get it's ass in gear and put FireWire2 on the front line *now*, it also has to market it better to VIA etc. so that PC users want it.
The added cost for USB2 would be minimal. The current chipset has been reimboursed countless times. Having FireWire, there is indeed no immediate reason to have a USB2 port, but there also isn't any reason *not* to have it . How many of us actually use the GB Ethernet port on our Macs?
I don't mind paying a premium for my Mac. I do however mind getting 2-3 year old tech in that machine.
My concern is that FireWire could become just a niche market for some highend equipment that needs the advantages of FireWire. Does anyone know what it would take to do digital video over USB 2? If it can be done, it may not look good for FireWire's future. Possibly, we really need FireWire II or whatever it will be called, so there will be some overwhelming advantage to FireWire. FireWare will insure its future only when it can deliver advantages that far outstrip USB 2 for several categories of peripheral devices -- only when no one can say, "Well USB 2 is almost as good, and therefore it is good enough." FireWire needs clear advantages that people cannot ignore.
The main problem I see with it, is the support cost from customers who do not understand why they get a low throughput because they have a keyboard and a USB 2.0 device sharing a port. From a customer support point of view, USB 2.0 is a nightmare. Already I know a lot of people that do not understand why their printer prints so slowly under USB 1.1. (With USB, you should always have peripherals of same speed share a port, whether it is 1.5(I think)Mbps USB 1.1, 12 Mbps USB 1.1 or 480Mbps USB 2.0).
For the CPU cycles, USB 2.0 actually takes less than USB 1.1, as it does use DMA.
Firewire is on all aspects a better design that USB 2.0, but then again, BETA was better than VHS.
I think Apple is going to push towards HDTV, the top speed of copper based Firewire will be 200MBps, fast enough for HTDV (the optical fiber version will be twice that).
I'm no expert, but Live video probably doesn't need a 2-3 Gig interface and will work with 480 Meg just fine.
Kenny must live... to die
<strong>
Firewire is so superior to USB2.0, yet since Intel is integrating USB2.0 into the motherboard and PC manufactures have to add Firewire as an add-on card... Well you know how that goes...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Firewire is more common than you think on PC's. My Dell has it (never thought I would be saying nice about Dell).
<strong>I was concerned about FireWire being replace by USB 2, but a couple things give me real hope. Yamaha has mLAN, which is an audio I/O that can replace MIDI and do a lot more, if I understand correctly. mLAN is a FireWire interconnection scheme. Now there is also FireBus, being put on new satellite receivers by Dish Network. It interconnects all the digital TV equipment, receiver, HDTV monitor, digital VCR, digital camcorder, and so on. It to is a FireWire interconnection. I believe that USB 2 could not replace FireWire in these application, because in USB, everything goes through the computer. It may be the difference that eventually gives FireWire the nod for the ultimate standard. With so much consumer and pro gear going FireWire, the price of chips will come down. FireWire can replace USB 2 in all cases, but not the other way around. I think possibly USB 2 will be the niche market someday, not FireWire. Who knows, just scanners and printers? Does anyone know whether FireWire gives external drives a performance advantage over USB 2? Maybe it will take the 1384b standard to realize enough advantage. I am not familiar with data transfer rates for drives.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The following is a repost I posted in the "Firwire 2 Speed?" thread a few days ago. Thought I may answer your question :
--------
Found this article on Firewire (400) vs USB 2.0. They tested external hard drives.
Firewire came out on top every time and in some cases 'smoked' USB 2.0.
<a href="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/" target="_blank">http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/</a>
Ha, looks like USB2 hits a wall at 14MB/sec (what?s that, like 112Mbps) Far cry from the 480Mbps they "claim". Where as Firewire was clearing 40MB/sec in some cases...
I know which one I would rather have. Let alone F2.
Blizaine
--------
No doubt USB 2 is here to stay, since it can be the only connection for a low end computer. After all, hard drives were sold that worked on USB 1.1 for those who didn't mind the poor performance. USB 2 is a vast improvement. USB 2 may dominate for scanners and printers in the future, and other devices that do not need the performance of FireWire 2. I cannot see any downside to putting USB 2 on a Mac if the cost is about the same as USB 1.1. Strange that Intel is not putting their chips out yet. Maybe they are trying to get more performance from them.
No USB 2 until Firewire 2 (or Gigawire, etc) appears.
At least on the Powermacs. They will be the first to need them both. Maybe its on this new rev coming in July, maybe not. But I imagine that however it works out, the Powermac to first see these improvements will see: 4 USB 2 ports, 2 on front, 2 on back; 1 Firewire2 port, on the back, and 2-3 Firewire (original) ports, with one on the front for easy FW Target Disk mode, iPod, etc.
Why do I bring up port distribution? Because unlike USB2, which is the same plug, and compatible, the new Firewire (this has been mentioned before) moves to a new plug. I hear 6-to-9, but I wouldn't necessarily see what the 9 would be. (If anyone knows what each wire does in the new Firewire, private msg me). So Apple will need to have both new AND old Firewire, so as to not leave current firewire devices in the dust.
For exactly this reason, the iMac may not get Firewire2 for a long time. It may get USB 2 first, since itd be a matter of some mobo chips and a new plug (though the same size/shape). Firewire 2 would be more complicated, as they would be larger/different, and would need to come along with the old Firewire. I imagine that in 1.5 years from the release (1 year frow now?) We may see a chassis refreshing of the iMac (like the Kihei iMac refreshed the G3 iMac). This would allow the proper changes and a good opportunity. Note that while the Powermac got Firewire in Jan 99, the iMac waited until Summer 2000 when the iMac DV was announced. The tech doesn't come to the consumer for a while.
So don't expect Firewire2 on the iMac for a while. Expect it on the PowerMac soon.
Likewise, don't expect a Firewire2 iPod ANY time soon. Its HD is currently not fast enough to make use of it, and it wouldn't allow current Mac users to buy a new iPod.