This is really neat. For one, it could turn every mac connected to a network into a server with two high speed ports for connecting to other computers. No need to buy a port replicator, your Firewire port is the new network connection.
Second, it eliminates the need to use target disk mode, as both computers could be on at the same time - networked through firewire.
Lastly, it could allow sharing of firewire based devices beyond disks, such as optical disk burners, printers, and scanners.
And it also may have something to do with Rendevous, making firewire devices network recognizable and configurable.
I am not really convinced. IP over FW has been shown before, and it's been met with a lukewarm reception.
Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet.
Most Macs have GigE built-in to the machine. Why would I want to slow down my network connection?
Firewire is a great thing, don't get me wrong. isochronous transfer alone is a killer. But you don't get that with TCP/IP. That is what this is all about, using FW to tunnel TCP/IP.
Big Whoop! <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
As for FW Target Disk mode... I've got news for you: It'll [IP over FW] be slower. You want two machines on at the same time.. it's called "Filesharing" perhaps you've heard of it. I hear it's all the rage in Palo Alto .
Use Ethernet where it makes sense [networking] and use FW where it makes sense [local peripheral connections].
The only place where this is even remotely interesting is pripheral sharing over a network, not unlike "printer sharing" today. You'd still need the host machine to be online for it to work [you can't plug current peripherals into the network directly... one day this may change]
oh well, I've rambled enough. I just want faster FW in general.
<strong>I am not really convinced. IP over FW has been shown before, and it's been met with a lukewarm reception.
Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet.
Most Macs have GigE built-in to the machine. Why would I want to slow down my network connection?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think Apple is thinking of replacing Ethernet with this tech. It's mostly good for one thing: Low cost clustering. And it's really good at that. You can't daisy chain dozens of Macs together with Ethernet, and the cost of the hubs for Gb Ethernet is very high. Want to add more machines? Just add them to the daisy chain and let Rendezvous do its thing.
Cable length isn't an issue, because clustered machines are usually right near each other.
My prediction is that soon we will see an iPod with Bluetooth and Firewire that will allow publishing/streaming of playlists to iTunes over TCP/IP using Rendezvous as demoed at MacWorld expo. Why use a laptop with iTunes to publish the playlists when you can use your iPod (show up at a friends house and stream music to their Mac/digital hub that is connected to their home theater). I am sure that the RTOS within the iPod is capable of redezvous and streaming over any interface as long as the interface supports TCP/IP, case and point for TCP/IP over firewire. Bluetooth is next.
<strong> . . . Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet. . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
. . . But IEEE 1394b will lead to expanded adoption in many of the applications where 1394 is firmly established, including DTV, set-top boxes, VCRs and DVDs. Virtually all of these products will be 1394-enabled by the year 2002. The 'b' version also paves the way for a new round of application development for home networking, with its high speeds, low bit error and guaranteed latency requirements. IEEE 1394b's enhancements also definitely will benefit computer peripherals, which require higher speeds as disk-head read rates increase and as the pixel densities and color depths in imaging devices such as printers and scanners continue to improve.
IEEE 1394b allows extensions to 800Mbit/sec., 1.6Gbit/sec. and 3.2Gbit/sec., all over copper wire. It supports long-distance transfers to 100 meters over a variety of media: CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec., existing plastic optical fiber at 200Mbits/sec., next-generation plastic optical fiber at 400Mbit/sec. and 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber at up to 3.2Gbit/sec. The improved speed and distance capabilities of 1394b result from two major improvements: overlapped arbitration and advanced data encoding. . . .<hr></blockquote>
Add this to the hints that Firewire will be used for AV communication, it is in DV cameras and some TV's already, and that it is bieng used iin some high end audio solutions. It has the potential to become a standardized AV communication format. Now with this, and Rendezvous your AV system becomes part of a high speed FW network hooked up to your computer, and you still have your ethernet port available for your broadband connectivity. 100 meters is quite a distance, and is that....why yes it is, CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec. And later in the article:
[quote] . . . Using previous versions of the 1394b specification, Omneon Video Networks is shipping digital video distribution networks with 300m, 800Mbit/sec. connections using multimode glass fiber, . . . <hr></blockquote>
Could this be why Apple is not hhoping on the set-top box bandwagon? They are collaborating with Sony/Ericson on phones, and Philips is planniing on adopting Rendezvous, and just wait a second . . . dont Sony and Philips make DVD's, VCR's, Sterio's and TV's? This solution would be a windfall to Apple, and make them a seriouse contender in the digital media markdet, both home and professional. And they dont actually have to build and market the TV's, DVD's, or VCR's, and you loose the redundancy of another box on top of your TV that does the same thing in a slightly different way....
Just musing...but think of the possibilities...doubtless someone at Apple has, becouse they are part of the 1394 trade association.
p.s. sarcasm is not ment as an insult, please dont take it that way...
I don't think Apple is thinking of replacing Ethernet with this tech. It's mostly good for one thing: Low cost clustering. And it's really good at that. You can't daisy chain dozens of Macs together with Ethernet, and the cost of the hubs for Gb Ethernet is very high. Want to add more machines? Just add them to the daisy chain and let Rendezvous do its thing.
Cable length isn't an issue, because clustered machines are usually right near each other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A few things.
1) [and most important] Congrats Amorph on your 2000th post
2) Low cost clustering is A Good Thing[tm], but most beowulf clusters use normal fast Ethernet. Huge amounts of data aren't really thrown around in these clusters, huge amouts of CPU are needed. Rendezvous works over normal ethernet, and there is nothing wrong with shoving a whole buncha XServes into a rack, and plugging them into a 100bT switch. You can get them for almost free these days. Granted, not all clusters are of the beowulf variety, but they do, for the most part, the same thing.
I still think that a single GigE switch is more cost-effective than an arseload of FW cable, considering we're talking about 1000Mbps vs. 400Mbps, but admittedly, it's an open debate. If you're going to shell out the cash for n Xserves, a single GigE switch is a drop in the bucket.
But that is exactly the *opposite* of what we are talking about. What you've quoted is FW over Ethernet. This is about TCP/IP over FW. They are saying that you can shove the FW protocol over Cat5 [physical layer] at 100Mbit/Sec. That is pretty cool. But I can shove the TCP/IP protocol through Cat5 at over 1000MBit/sec. Yes, FW is cool, but tunnelling a networking protocol through FW isn't all that interesting, due to limitations stated in my previous post
1) [and most important] Congrats Amorph on your 2000th post </strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh. I hadn't even noticed. Thanks, I guess.
[note to self: Get a life already!]
[quote]<strong>2) Low cost clustering is A Good Thing[tm], but most beowulf clusters use normal fast Ethernet. Huge amounts of data aren't really thrown around in these clusters, huge amouts of CPU are needed. Rendezvous works over normal ethernet, and there is nothing wrong with shoving a whole buncha XServes into a rack, and plugging them into a 100bT switch. You can get them for almost free these days. Granted, not all clusters are of the beowulf variety, but they do, for the most part, the same thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
People design around the strengths and limitations of a technology, so I wonder to what extent the software that runs on Beowulf clusters doesn't currently shuttle data around much because there's a bottleneck (more like a pinhole) there. You can get hubs, and perhaps the cost is a wash, but the FW setup is much cleaner because it doesn't need hubs at all. Also, it's not mutually exclusive with Ethernet. If someone wanted to connect a bunch of Xserves via FW and Gb Ethernet (and, for that matter, the 2Gb/s fiber channel port that every Xserve has...) and run TCP/IP over all three, they probably could.
Still assuming Xserves (although this would work for towers lined up in a row, but then they'd be hard to service), an enterprising clusterer (is that a word?) could buy 6-10 feet of good FW cable (i.e., not cat-5) and cut it up into pieces not much larger than patch cables. After all, if you're daisy-chaining 1U servers, you hardly need any cable length at all. Ethernet cables need to be long enough to reach the hub(s).
[quote]<strong>I still think that a single GigE switch is more cost-effective than an arseload of FW cable, considering we're talking about 1000Mbps vs. 400Mbps, but admittedly, it's an open debate. If you're going to shell out the cash for n Xserves, a single GigE switch is a drop in the bucket.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's an open debate, then you have to admit that it's nice to have the option there. FW2 will bring more options.
Also, the speculation about the iPod (and other digital hub devices) is interesting... I think FireWire's potential is nowhere near completely tapped. It's peer-to-peer design is still underutilized - which is why anyone actually considers USB 2 to be a credible alternative. But that's another thread.
I see your point, but as a consumer I have a DVD, TV, and Sterio that have Firewire ports, and each has its own "embeded" computer to handle what it does. I may be missing something on the technical side, but what I see here is a way to network these systems together, and with my "Digital Hub" without the need to buy and understand Network Hubs, Switches, etc. And without adding the additonal cost to the manufacture of these devices that would be needed if you added an ethernet port to them. 1394b is bieng pitched as a way for these products to communicate with each other, and as it stands now, it looks like it will become a standard for this. So you DVD player will already have a 1394b port, why add the additional $30+ to the cost of the system in a very competative market.
Could this be why Apple is not hhoping on the set-top box bandwagon? They are collaborating with Sony/Ericson on phones, and Philips is planniing on adopting Rendezvous, and just wait a second . . . dont Sony and Philips make DVD's, VCR's, Sterio's and TV's? This solution would be a windfall to Apple, and make them a seriouse contender in the digital media markdet, both home and professional. And they dont actually have to build and market the TV's, DVD's, or VCR's, and you loose the redundancy of another box on top of your TV that does the same thing in a slightly different way....
Funny you should mention that...my Time Warner Cable Box has two FireWire ports on the back of the device. I was wondering what they were for. Now I know.
<strong>I see your point, but as a consumer I have a DVD, TV, and Sterio that have Firewire ports, and each has its own "embeded" computer to handle what it does. I may be missing something on the technical side, but what I see here is a way to network these systems together, and with my "Digital Hub" without the need to buy and understand Network Hubs, Switches, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're not missing anything. This is precisely one of the things that FireWire was designed for.
Since the discussion has touched on convergence, maybe this is the place to ask. A few years back there was a fight about the standard for digital TV in the States. I was under the impression that Microsoft and others wanted it to be based on DVI* (thus making the TV another computer monitor).
Were the competitors pushing Firewire, instead? If not what was that other proposed standard?
Newer HDTV decoders are listing DVI as one of the ports.
[quote]Microsoft has detailed how advanced set-top boxes, integrated digital television receivers and display devices should be made interoperable in the year 2000 and beyond. Its white paper states that IEEE 1394 lacks the speed for high-definition TV data rates, which are on the order of 1.4 Gbits/second. "While future versions of 1394 may reach speeds in the 1.4-Gbps range, the 1394 interface was not designed to carry sustained HDTV data rates without interruption, as required by television viewing," Microsoft states.<hr></blockquote>
And, it states, that the MPAA was being majorly pissy about Firewire and copy protection.
<strong>Since the discussion has touched on convergence, maybe this is the place to ask. A few years back there was a fight about the standard for digital TV in the States. I was under the impression that Microsoft and others wanted it to be based on DVI* (thus making the TV another computer monitor).
Were the competitors pushing Firewire, instead? If not what was that other proposed standard?
Newer HDTV decoders are listing DVI as one of the ports.
I think that this standards battle is still being fought, that one of the reasons that there are so few "real" HDTV's on the market today. Other problems are the "catch 22" of the manufacturers saying that there isnt a market for it yet becouse the broadcasters arnt fully supporting it, and the broadcasters saying that they are not fully supporting it yet due to the lack of consumers who have HDTV's. Congress is talking now about how to "force" the conversion to the next step....they want the bandwidth that Analog TV has now for other purposes, the move will allow the FCC to "sell" the bandwidth for these new uses...
Ever notice on the back of some Digital cable boxes that strange shaped empty port that very closely resembles firewire? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
And yes, my Mitsubishi HDTV has both firewire and dvi ports. I have a first gen powerbook without the dvi out, so I need to upgrade to use my TV as a 65" monitor.
The MPAA is freaking out because HDTV has *really good but still not as good as film* quality that could potentially be saved digitally *gasp*, and shared *gasp* with friends. Admittedly, they do have a point, but encryption isn't the answer, as it'll just be cracked... usually within a month or so of public consumption
So they are leaning on the CE industry to encrypt end-to-end the signal coming from outside [through dish, cable or air] to the monitor itself [The DVI spec allows for this, and it is a pure digital signal]. Yes, this means you won't be able to record the Superbowl unless the broadcasters want you to. Even then, it isn't as simple as "can record" or "cannot record", it's "how often can this be shown". A serious blow to fair-use rights.
But to get this back on topic, more or less...
Options are good, but this isn't groundbreaking. It's similar [in my book] to all the folk who try to put linux on anything with a CPU. Cool idea, options are nice, but little real world value *at this time*
I still want to see:
* faster FW built-in to my mac
* device-to-device communication [I want to hook up my camera to a HDD through FW and have it DL all my pics, same with DV]
The standard for connecting A/V stuff over FireWire is HAVi, but I don't know if anyone is going to use it. I've seen several TVs and set tops with DVI, but none with HAVi.
Comments
<strong><a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0212/04.ipfirewire.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0212/04.ipfirewire.php</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
This is really neat. For one, it could turn every mac connected to a network into a server with two high speed ports for connecting to other computers. No need to buy a port replicator, your Firewire port is the new network connection.
Second, it eliminates the need to use target disk mode, as both computers could be on at the same time - networked through firewire.
Lastly, it could allow sharing of firewire based devices beyond disks, such as optical disk burners, printers, and scanners.
And it also may have something to do with Rendevous, making firewire devices network recognizable and configurable.
Way to go Apple
Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet.
Most Macs have GigE built-in to the machine. Why would I want to slow down my network connection?
Firewire is a great thing, don't get me wrong. isochronous transfer alone is a killer. But you don't get that with TCP/IP. That is what this is all about, using FW to tunnel TCP/IP.
Big Whoop! <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
As for FW Target Disk mode... I've got news for you: It'll [IP over FW] be slower. You want two machines on at the same time.. it's called "Filesharing" perhaps you've heard of it. I hear it's all the rage in Palo Alto
Use Ethernet where it makes sense [networking] and use FW where it makes sense [local peripheral connections].
The only place where this is even remotely interesting is pripheral sharing over a network, not unlike "printer sharing" today. You'd still need the host machine to be online for it to work [you can't plug current peripherals into the network directly... one day this may change]
oh well, I've rambled enough. I just want faster FW in general.
<strong>Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet.
Most Macs have GigE built-in to the machine. Why would I want to slow down my network connection?
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about 3.2 Gigabit Firewire + optical cable?
<strong>I am not really convinced. IP over FW has been shown before, and it's been met with a lukewarm reception.
Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet.
Most Macs have GigE built-in to the machine. Why would I want to slow down my network connection?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think Apple is thinking of replacing Ethernet with this tech. It's mostly good for one thing: Low cost clustering. And it's really good at that. You can't daisy chain dozens of Macs together with Ethernet, and the cost of the hubs for Gb Ethernet is very high. Want to add more machines? Just add them to the daisy chain and let Rendezvous do its thing.
Cable length isn't an issue, because clustered machines are usually right near each other.
<strong><a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0212/04.ipfirewire.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0212/04.ipfirewire.php</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
My prediction is that soon we will see an iPod with Bluetooth and Firewire that will allow publishing/streaming of playlists to iTunes over TCP/IP using Rendezvous as demoed at MacWorld expo. Why use a laptop with iTunes to publish the playlists when you can use your iPod (show up at a friends house and stream music to their Mac/digital hub that is connected to their home theater). I am sure that the RTOS within the iPod is capable of redezvous and streaming over any interface as long as the interface supports TCP/IP, case and point for TCP/IP over firewire. Bluetooth is next.
<strong> . . . Firewire cables are too expensive when compared to normal Cat5 ethernet cables, and most offices are already wired for Cat5.
Firewire cables fall short. Literally. The maximum length of a FW chain is *much* shorter than the maximum distance of Ethernet. . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]
<a href="http://www.e-insite.net/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleId=CA91031"; target="_blank">http://www.e-insite.net/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleId=CA91031</a>;
. . . But IEEE 1394b will lead to expanded adoption in many of the applications where 1394 is firmly established, including DTV, set-top boxes, VCRs and DVDs. Virtually all of these products will be 1394-enabled by the year 2002. The 'b' version also paves the way for a new round of application development for home networking, with its high speeds, low bit error and guaranteed latency requirements. IEEE 1394b's enhancements also definitely will benefit computer peripherals, which require higher speeds as disk-head read rates increase and as the pixel densities and color depths in imaging devices such as printers and scanners continue to improve.
IEEE 1394b allows extensions to 800Mbit/sec., 1.6Gbit/sec. and 3.2Gbit/sec., all over copper wire. It supports long-distance transfers to 100 meters over a variety of media: CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec., existing plastic optical fiber at 200Mbits/sec., next-generation plastic optical fiber at 400Mbit/sec. and 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber at up to 3.2Gbit/sec. The improved speed and distance capabilities of 1394b result from two major improvements: overlapped arbitration and advanced data encoding. . . .<hr></blockquote>
Add this to the hints that Firewire will be used for AV communication, it is in DV cameras and some TV's already, and that it is bieng used iin some high end audio solutions. It has the potential to become a standardized AV communication format. Now with this, and Rendezvous your AV system becomes part of a high speed FW network hooked up to your computer, and you still have your ethernet port available for your broadband connectivity. 100 meters is quite a distance, and is that....why yes it is, CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec. And later in the article:
[quote] . . . Using previous versions of the 1394b specification, Omneon Video Networks is shipping digital video distribution networks with 300m, 800Mbit/sec. connections using multimode glass fiber, . . . <hr></blockquote>
Could this be why Apple is not hhoping on the set-top box bandwagon? They are collaborating with Sony/Ericson on phones, and Philips is planniing on adopting Rendezvous, and just wait a second . . . dont Sony and Philips make DVD's, VCR's, Sterio's and TV's? This solution would be a windfall to Apple, and make them a seriouse contender in the digital media markdet, both home and professional. And they dont actually have to build and market the TV's, DVD's, or VCR's, and you loose the redundancy of another box on top of your TV that does the same thing in a slightly different way....
Just musing...but think of the possibilities...doubtless someone at Apple has, becouse they are part of the 1394 trade association.
p.s. sarcasm is not ment as an insult, please dont take it that way...
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: JCG ]</p>
<strong>
I don't think Apple is thinking of replacing Ethernet with this tech. It's mostly good for one thing: Low cost clustering. And it's really good at that. You can't daisy chain dozens of Macs together with Ethernet, and the cost of the hubs for Gb Ethernet is very high. Want to add more machines? Just add them to the daisy chain and let Rendezvous do its thing.
Cable length isn't an issue, because clustered machines are usually right near each other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A few things.
1) [and most important] Congrats Amorph on your 2000th post
2) Low cost clustering is A Good Thing[tm], but most beowulf clusters use normal fast Ethernet. Huge amounts of data aren't really thrown around in these clusters, huge amouts of CPU are needed. Rendezvous works over normal ethernet, and there is nothing wrong with shoving a whole buncha XServes into a rack, and plugging them into a 100bT switch. You can get them for almost free these days. Granted, not all clusters are of the beowulf variety, but they do, for the most part, the same thing.
I still think that a single GigE switch is more cost-effective than an arseload of FW cable, considering we're talking about 1000Mbps vs. 400Mbps, but admittedly, it's an open debate. If you're going to shell out the cash for n Xserves, a single GigE switch is a drop in the bucket.
<strong>
100 meters is quite a distance, and is that....why yes it is, CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec. And later in the article:
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: JCG ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that is exactly the *opposite* of what we are talking about. What you've quoted is FW over Ethernet. This is about TCP/IP over FW. They are saying that you can shove the FW protocol over Cat5 [physical layer] at 100Mbit/Sec. That is pretty cool. But I can shove the TCP/IP protocol through Cat5 at over 1000MBit/sec. Yes, FW is cool, but tunnelling a networking protocol through FW isn't all that interesting, due to limitations stated in my previous post
<strong>A few things.
1) [and most important] Congrats Amorph on your 2000th post
Heh. I hadn't even noticed. Thanks, I guess.
[note to self: Get a life already!]
[quote]<strong>2) Low cost clustering is A Good Thing[tm], but most beowulf clusters use normal fast Ethernet. Huge amounts of data aren't really thrown around in these clusters, huge amouts of CPU are needed. Rendezvous works over normal ethernet, and there is nothing wrong with shoving a whole buncha XServes into a rack, and plugging them into a 100bT switch. You can get them for almost free these days. Granted, not all clusters are of the beowulf variety, but they do, for the most part, the same thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
People design around the strengths and limitations of a technology, so I wonder to what extent the software that runs on Beowulf clusters doesn't currently shuttle data around much because there's a bottleneck (more like a pinhole) there. You can get hubs, and perhaps the cost is a wash, but the FW setup is much cleaner because it doesn't need hubs at all. Also, it's not mutually exclusive with Ethernet. If someone wanted to connect a bunch of Xserves via FW and Gb Ethernet (and, for that matter, the 2Gb/s fiber channel port that every Xserve has...) and run TCP/IP over all three, they probably could.
Still assuming Xserves (although this would work for towers lined up in a row, but then they'd be hard to service), an enterprising clusterer (is that a word?) could buy 6-10 feet of good FW cable (i.e., not cat-5) and cut it up into pieces not much larger than patch cables. After all, if you're daisy-chaining 1U servers, you hardly need any cable length at all. Ethernet cables need to be long enough to reach the hub(s).
[quote]<strong>I still think that a single GigE switch is more cost-effective than an arseload of FW cable, considering we're talking about 1000Mbps vs. 400Mbps, but admittedly, it's an open debate. If you're going to shell out the cash for n Xserves, a single GigE switch is a drop in the bucket.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's an open debate, then you have to admit that it's nice to have the option there. FW2 will bring more options.
Also, the speculation about the iPod (and other digital hub devices) is interesting... I think FireWire's potential is nowhere near completely tapped. It's peer-to-peer design is still underutilized - which is why anyone actually considers USB 2 to be a credible alternative. But that's another thread.
<strong>
Could this be why Apple is not hhoping on the set-top box bandwagon? They are collaborating with Sony/Ericson on phones, and Philips is planniing on adopting Rendezvous, and just wait a second . . . dont Sony and Philips make DVD's, VCR's, Sterio's and TV's? This solution would be a windfall to Apple, and make them a seriouse contender in the digital media markdet, both home and professional. And they dont actually have to build and market the TV's, DVD's, or VCR's, and you loose the redundancy of another box on top of your TV that does the same thing in a slightly different way....
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: JCG ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny you should mention that...my Time Warner Cable Box has two FireWire ports on the back of the device. I was wondering what they were for. Now I know.
<strong>I see your point, but as a consumer I have a DVD, TV, and Sterio that have Firewire ports, and each has its own "embeded" computer to handle what it does. I may be missing something on the technical side, but what I see here is a way to network these systems together, and with my "Digital Hub" without the need to buy and understand Network Hubs, Switches, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're not missing anything. This is precisely one of the things that FireWire was designed for.
:cool:
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Were the competitors pushing Firewire, instead? If not what was that other proposed standard?
Newer HDTV decoders are listing DVI as one of the ports.
Screed
Ah, finally found something:
<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000918S0020"; target="_blank">FCC opens the door to 1394 for cable-ready equipment</a> Sept. 2000
[quote]Microsoft has detailed how advanced set-top boxes, integrated digital television receivers and display devices should be made interoperable in the year 2000 and beyond. Its white paper states that IEEE 1394 lacks the speed for high-definition TV data rates, which are on the order of 1.4 Gbits/second. "While future versions of 1394 may reach speeds in the 1.4-Gbps range, the 1394 interface was not designed to carry sustained HDTV data rates without interruption, as required by television viewing," Microsoft states.<hr></blockquote>
And, it states, that the MPAA was being majorly pissy about Firewire and copy protection.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
<strong>Since the discussion has touched on convergence, maybe this is the place to ask. A few years back there was a fight about the standard for digital TV in the States. I was under the impression that Microsoft and others wanted it to be based on DVI* (thus making the TV another computer monitor).
Were the competitors pushing Firewire, instead? If not what was that other proposed standard?
Newer HDTV decoders are listing DVI as one of the ports.
Screed
Ah, finally found something:
<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000918S0020"; target="_blank">FCC opens the door to 1394 for cable-ready equipment</a> Sept. 2000
And, it states, that the MPAA was being majorly pissy about copy protection.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that this standards battle is still being fought, that one of the reasons that there are so few "real" HDTV's on the market today. Other problems are the "catch 22" of the manufacturers saying that there isnt a market for it yet becouse the broadcasters arnt fully supporting it, and the broadcasters saying that they are not fully supporting it yet due to the lack of consumers who have HDTV's. Congress is talking now about how to "force" the conversion to the next step....they want the bandwidth that Analog TV has now for other purposes, the move will allow the FCC to "sell" the bandwidth for these new uses...
And yes, my Mitsubishi HDTV has both firewire and dvi ports. I have a first gen powerbook without the dvi out, so I need to upgrade to use my TV as a 65" monitor.
The MPAA is freaking out because HDTV has *really good but still not as good as film* quality that could potentially be saved digitally *gasp*, and shared *gasp* with friends. Admittedly, they do have a point, but encryption isn't the answer, as it'll just be cracked... usually within a month or so of public consumption
So they are leaning on the CE industry to encrypt end-to-end the signal coming from outside [through dish, cable or air] to the monitor itself [The DVI spec allows for this, and it is a pure digital signal]. Yes, this means you won't be able to record the Superbowl unless the broadcasters want you to. Even then, it isn't as simple as "can record" or "cannot record", it's "how often can this be shown". A serious blow to fair-use rights.
But to get this back on topic, more or less...
Options are good, but this isn't groundbreaking. It's similar [in my book] to all the folk who try to put linux on anything with a CPU. Cool idea, options are nice, but little real world value *at this time*
I still want to see:
* faster FW built-in to my mac
* device-to-device communication [I want to hook up my camera to a HDD through FW and have it DL all my pics, same with DV]
* cheap native FW drives [not IDE bridged]
I bet MWSF = FireWire2, among other things.
The standard for connecting A/V stuff over FireWire is HAVi, but I don't know if anyone is going to use it. I've seen several TVs and set tops with DVI, but none with HAVi.
<a href="http://www.havi.org/"; target="_blank">http://www.havi.org/</a>;