PDA

View Full Version : FireWire popularity grows this year; FW 800 set to flourish ...


MacBytes
Dec 15, 2005, 09:11 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: FireWire popularity grows this year; FW 800 set to flourish in 2006. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051215101117)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

yellow
Dec 15, 2005, 09:14 AM
This seems a distinct contradiction to the rumor that the MacTels won't have firewire, or firewire support will change somehow. :rolleyes:

grapes911
Dec 15, 2005, 09:17 AM
This seems a distinct contradiction to the rumor that the MacTels won't have firewire, or firewire support will change somehow. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but who are we to argue with "Experts" and their speculations. :rolleyes:

yellow
Dec 15, 2005, 09:19 AM
Yeah, but who are we to argue with "Experts" and their speculations. :rolleyes:

Right on! :)

Sunrunner
Dec 15, 2005, 09:19 AM
This seems a distinct contradiction to the rumor that the MacTels won't have firewire, or firewire support will change somehow. :rolleyes:


You hit the nail on the head there. This whole firewire is starting to look like the "Apple is going to go bankrupt" argument... people keep calling it, but the reality never seems to quite catch up.

Firewire (both 400 and 800) is too ingrained in the Pro market, especially DV, for any move to drop it to come from Apple anytime in the near future.

yellow
Dec 15, 2005, 09:35 AM
There seems to be a glaring error/typo right at the beginning of the article where it claims that:

Growth for FireWire 800, with bandwidths up to 400 Megabits/second,

Erm...

Applespider
Dec 15, 2005, 09:41 AM
Yeah, but who are we to argue with "Experts" and their speculations. :rolleyes:

Well, as expert speculators, I'd say we can argue all we like :p

I didn't believe the no FW thing to start with; it came from a single article making a spurious article based on the iPod.

jholzner
Dec 15, 2005, 10:31 AM
Can someone explain why when Apple released firewire800 they changed the port shape? I think one reason it is being adopted slowly is becuase older 400 devices cannot connect to it. USB2 uses the same type of port why didn't firewire go that route too?

Fiveos22
Dec 15, 2005, 10:43 AM
The spat between Wilbur and Michael in the comments section is the most interesting part of this article. I suppose its nice to hear that FW800 is catching on (yet more evidence of Apple being a leader), but those drive setups are still expensive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822154028)

~$1 per gig for FW800 does not stack up very well against $0.69 per gig for a FW400 drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822154603) or $ 0.37 per gig for an internal SATA150 drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144338).

But that's just my 2c.

Fiveos22
Dec 15, 2005, 10:45 AM
Can someone explain why when Apple released firewire800 they changed the port shape? I think one reason it is being adopted slowly is becuase older 400 devices cannot connect to it. USB2 uses the same type of port why didn't firewire go that route too?

FW800 is a hardware standard called IEEE 1394b. Apple may have contributed to its design (as part of a consortium), but its not an Apple product.

szark
Dec 15, 2005, 10:47 AM
Can someone explain why when Apple released firewire800 they changed the port shape? I think one reason it is being adopted slowly is becuase older 400 devices cannot connect to it. USB2 uses the same type of port why didn't firewire go that route too?

Well, it would have been nice if they could have kept the same connector, but I don't think that's the main barrier to adoption. Especially since you just need a converter cable to plug in any standard FireWire device. The reasons for the new connector are summarized in this PDF (http://www.1394ta.org/Technology/About/ppt1.PDF), starting on page 16.

The main reasons (IMHO) that it hasn't caught on quickly are cost (to the developers) and device speed.

FireWire had slow uptake because the electronics were more complex, requiring more board space and making the device more costly. FireWire 800 is even more complex than standard FireWire, so it is more complex/costly to develop. Now that there are proven single-chip solutions, it is easier to incorporate into a given product.

Also, most hard drives and other devices out there couldn't saturate the standard FireWire bus. Now the device speed has increased to the point where they need a faster bus.

Loge
Dec 15, 2005, 10:49 AM
Can someone explain why when Apple released firewire800 they changed the port shape? I think one reason it is being adopted slowly is becuase older 400 devices cannot connect to it. USB2 uses the same type of port why didn't firewire go that route too?

Presumably it was required to accommodate the 9 pins (as opposed to 6) in the connector. Fortunately, adapters are readily available.

Article states that 65% of portables have Firewire 400. Shame about the lack of support in the latest iPods.

grapes911
Dec 15, 2005, 10:50 AM
FW800 is a hardware standard called IEEE 1394b. Apple may have contributed to its design (as part of a consortium), but its not an Apple product.
Very true, but if you are wondering why the shape changed any it is because they needed more pins for the extra speed. Firewire (1394a) comes in two types. 4-pin and 6-pin. The 6-pin has power, the 4-pin does not. Firewire 800 (1394b) comes in a 9-pin configuration. There are cables and adapters that let you go from one to another, though you'll only get FW400 speeds.
http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-800-1394b-cables.htm#9-6

Edit. I was way too slow on this one. :o

jdechko
Dec 15, 2005, 12:22 PM
I highly doubt that FW will vanish anytime soon. It has become too useful of a tool, especially for Multimedia professionals. And the dude on the site comparing SATA and FW is completely crazy. For the most part, FW is meant to be an external solution to peripheral connectivity whereas SATA is more internal. Yeah, SATA is faster, but again, the purpose is different.

nagromme
Dec 15, 2005, 02:27 PM
Firewire is of very little value to the way most people use iPods, so why add cost or size? (Internal components and possibly including a second cable--ready for the landfill.)

Computers and video are another story. Firewire is ingrained in professional AND consumer markets. iMovie, anyone?

Firewire may transition more to 800, with adapters for the old 400 stuff. And some hypothetical bottom-end Mac might possibly lose Firewire, just as low-end PCs cut corners that way. But Firewire is NOT going away and Apple is NOT backing away from it.

I feel bad for all the USB 1.1 users out there who have old computers but new iPods. Your use of your iPod as a hard disk is hampered by the speed, I know. I also feel bad for people like me who want to boot from iPod, and can't (yet) with USB. (Oh, wait, I can, my iPod has Firewire :) Lucky me!)

But that business decision made good sense, and tells us NOTHING about Apple's commitment to Firewire in other products.

(Whoa... Macrumors 601... 5000th post... time to take a good long look at my life. :o )

sjk
Dec 16, 2005, 12:41 PM
For the most part, FW is meant to be an external solution to peripheral connectivity whereas SATA is more internal. Yeah, SATA is faster, but again, the purpose is different.Although eSATA (http://www.sata-io.org/esata.asp) appears to be a viable alternative to FW for external storage devices but not for A/V and other devices that work best with isosynchronous data transfers which FW supports and neither eSATA or USB2 do.

sjk
Dec 16, 2005, 12:51 PM
(Whoa... Macrumors 601... 5000th post... time to take a good long look at my life. :o )Just in time to make some resolutions at your new year's prolific poster party and/or look back at some of your first posts for nostalgia's (or worse) sake? :)

Hmm, just noticed I've bumped up a level to 6502. Seems this post did it... how coincidentally ironic.