Intel Macs - More USB, Still with Firewire? [Archive]

MacRumors

Jan 3, 2006, 02:19 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

MacOSXRumors claims (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/01/02/mactels-to-get-more-usb-ports-keep-firewire/) that despite previous rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051208222720.shtml) that Apple's Intel laptops may lose their Firewire connections, Apple is expected to keep at least one Firewire port on the upcoming Intel Macs.

Instead, Apple may be increasing the number of USB connectors to the upcoming machines, but will retain at least one Firewire port.

Lacero

Jan 3, 2006, 02:20 AM

Of course!

Firewire is still required to connect with digital camcorders and external firewire drives! Pro mobile video editors would storm Apple HQ if they decided to drop firewire support from Intel laptops.

If the talk is about dropping FW from the iBook, then I guess that would be ok.

rspeaker

Jan 3, 2006, 02:26 AM

I'm no pro user, but Firewire... the only reason I care about it is because Apple's really fought hard for it. They've already stopped shipping iPods with Firewire cables, and if money allows for one of the new iMacs with built-in iSight, well, I won't need Firewire anymore. I say it's a shame; it kept Apple a little different. But, for the consumer line, it doesn't seem to make too much sense to keep it around. But I bet they will, if only one port.

ZildjianKX

Jan 3, 2006, 02:43 AM

What about "Firewire Target Disk Mode?" That is like the coolest thing... unless they make it work with USB, unless it already does.

plastique45

Jan 3, 2006, 02:46 AM

mulletman13

Jan 3, 2006, 02:53 AM

D'oh, I hope they have a FireWire port, such a better technology there, and besides, it has a better name :)

One FW800 port would be excellent though :D... on the Pro line, but FW400 would be just fine on a consumer computer.

After G

Jan 3, 2006, 03:17 AM

If the pro computers only come with FW800, I hope they include a downconverter to FW400. I have a bunch of FW400 devices and no FW800 devices. Maybe they'll have both, which is even more awesome.

Bastich

Jan 3, 2006, 03:19 AM

And don't forget about all those Firewire iPods still floating around out there. Remember those? If thousands of people bought a brand new MacIntel only to find out it's incompatible with their iPod, there would be hell to pay. No, Apple will have to wait a couple years yet before pulling the old forced-upgrade trick.

:cool:

Loge

Jan 3, 2006, 03:26 AM

2- 1 Firewire port is what's currently offered on the PowerBook, this is nothing new. One of FireWire's greatest asset is that you need only 1 port as all devices are hub-able.

Current Powerbooks have two Firewire ports, one 400 and one 800. I hope that this continues on the Intel line.

Voidness

Jan 3, 2006, 04:00 AM

If the talk is about dropping FW from the iBook, then I guess that would be ok.
How is that ok? You don't need to be a pro user to need Firewire. iMovie needs Firewire, it ships on all Macs, and is consumer oriented.

kenzbud

Jan 3, 2006, 04:14 AM

They better keep Firewire.. My Lacie devices all use Firewire.... I prefer Firewire over USB 2.0

rockandrule

Jan 3, 2006, 04:15 AM

What are you people talking about? Pros have more than one FireWire port on them to begin with! Apple won't discontinue FireWire. The Movie industry just reconfirmed it's usage. Apple has put too much into FireWire to get rid of it. Stop fretting about such an asinine idea.

Bad Beaver

Jan 3, 2006, 04:35 AM

shadowmoses

Jan 3, 2006, 04:51 AM

Im sure all mac's will retain firewire in spite of intel, i mean what is the point of dropping firewire its of no benefit to either apple or the consumer, they should at least keep 1 firewire slot on every new intel mac,

Shadow

johnnyjibbs

Jan 3, 2006, 06:39 AM

The more I think about it, the more I think this is complete tosh. I mean, with iMovie and iChat needing Firewire to work (iChat requires Firewire for video out of the box) and the iSight only working via Firewire, dropping Firewire would be like first annoucning the G5 and then making the next OS upgrade G5-only. It simply doesn't make sense.

We all know that Firewire is much better than USB2. Unfrotunately, USB2 is the one that has been fully embraced.

joecool85

Jan 3, 2006, 08:44 AM

w00t!!!

This is the best! Good news(rumor anyway) for me to wake up to.

840quadra

Jan 3, 2006, 09:10 AM

w00t!!!

This is the best! Good news(rumor anyway) for me to wake up to.

I am with joecool85 on that as well :), except I am going to bed with this knowledge ;)

LimeiBook86

Jan 3, 2006, 10:07 AM

Firewire is still required to connect with digital camcorders and external firewire drives! Pro mobile video editors would storm Apple HQ if they decided to drop firewire support from Intel laptops.
Exactly! Your 100% correct, if Apple dropped FireWire in either some or all of their models it would be like shooting themselves in the foot. This is the last thing they need right now, and I don't think we'll have to worry about this...although...we can never be too sure unfortunately. :eek:

Peace

Jan 3, 2006, 10:14 AM

I dont know WHO first came up with the idea that Apple was ending Firewire.Thats about the dumbest thing out..
iSight is firewire.Almost ALL external HD's are firewire.Almost ALL Camcorders are firewire..
If Apple stopped putting firewire in ANY machine it would be the most idiotic move EVER.
Give Apple some credit and stop believing all this stuff about them ending firewire..

prismfinder

Jan 3, 2006, 10:16 AM

My biggest concern is losing IP over Firewire, which I use everyday to connect my Powerbook to the gigabit connection at work through my G5. Since I have only one Gigabit jack in my office, I share my Internet connection over Firewire 800, which is pretty sweet.

Lacero

Jan 3, 2006, 10:28 AM

This story really should be on Page 3.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

revenuee

Jan 3, 2006, 10:29 AM

one firewire is not enough

i like having my drives and devices running on one bus and my video camera running on the other -- it ensures no dropped frames for me.

also ... firewire ip is amazing ... much less expensive then gigabit ethernet and a great alternative for offices that don't have the infrastructure set up, and the IT person couldn't administer a toaster so talking to them about it is useless

Cinch

Jan 3, 2006, 10:33 AM

Exactly! Your 100% correct, if Apple dropped FireWire in either some or all of their models it would be like shooting themselves in the foot. This is the last thing they need right now, and I don't think we'll have to worry about this...although...we can never be too sure unfortunately. :eek:

boo-hoo-hoo, i'm not sympathetic.

The way i see it is one less ungainly hole to see on a cute iBook or PB. While they are at it, get rid of the modem port and ethernet port too. Give me a beautiful stylist laptop with long battery life and wireless access.
Let not cater to people who like to stick every which wires that they can find to their laptop.:D

Cinch

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 10:49 AM

If the pro computers only come with FW800, I hope they include a downconverter to FW400. I have a bunch of FW400 devices and no FW800 devices. Maybe they'll have both, which is even more awesome.
The "downconverter" is a simple cable adapter. FW800 will auto-negotiate to 400Mbps if necessary. Just like it (and FW400) will auto-negotiate to 200M and 100M speeds (which are also valid FW speeds) if the attached devices don't support anything faster.

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 10:52 AM

boo-hoo-hoo, i'm not sympathetic.

The way i see it is one less ungainly hole to see on a cute iBook or PB. While they are at it, get rid of the modem port and ethernet port too. Give me a beautiful stylist laptop with long battery life and wireless access.
Let not cater to people who like to stick every which wires that they can find to their laptop.:D
While you're at it, let's get rid of the USB ports and keyboard as well, and force everything to be BlueTooth. And see if we can come up with a wireless display tech and matching headset to get rid of that bit of ugliness as well.

Ideally, we should have an undifferentiated plastic (or metal, if you prefer) brick that only ten people worldwide will be able to use. Let's not cater to people who actually want to do work on a computer that was clearly purchased only for its appearance.

snkTab

Jan 3, 2006, 11:17 AM

The worse thing would be to replace the firewire spot with all those card reader slots (SD, Compact flash, etc...).

Talk about ugly.

orion123

Jan 3, 2006, 11:17 AM

I agree, I think the orginal "FireWire is getting dropped" rumor was pretty irresponsible of Ogrady's PowerPage any way. It was more of a preditiction, not a solid rumor, and it just took off on the Web.

For all the reasons described here, loosing FireWire now would be a very very bad idea. I fully believe Apple will keep it until all new shipping camcorders (including high-end!) are on something else (if ever).

kainjow

Jan 3, 2006, 11:38 AM

My brother got a camcorder for Christmas and it only came with a USB cable. Will that work out of the box with a Mac and iMovie??

rockandrule

Jan 3, 2006, 11:41 AM

0MGZ GUYS!!! We NEED FireWire to go! It's the only way to make PBs thinner! Isn't this the right concept here? Someone using what happened with the iPods?

Le Big Mac

Jan 3, 2006, 11:43 AM

One of FireWire's greatest asset is that you need only 1 port as all devices are hub-able.

I was thinking that too until I looked at my 3G iPod and saw no second firewire port to daisy chain it.

radiskull

Jan 3, 2006, 11:47 AM

1- Macosxrumors.com just make up stuff as they go. Stop reprinting what they write.

I believe you maybe confusing Macosxrumors.com with Macosrumors.com.

Cybernanga

Jan 3, 2006, 12:17 PM

boo-hoo-hoo, i'm not sympathetic.

The way i see it is one less ungainly hole to see on a cute iBook or PB. While they are at it, get rid of the modem port and ethernet port too. Give me a beautiful stylist laptop with long battery life and wireless access.
Let not cater to people who like to stick every which wires that they can find to their laptop.:D

Cinch

Personally, I take my iBook everywhere. The Modem is very usefull for sending and recieving faxes, and connecting to the 'net in places where there is no wireless or broadband connection.

The Ethernet port is good for connecting to networks that don't have wireless, or even just to another computer (I always carry a patch cable).

The Firewire port is great for connect two mac's, for connecting to my DV cam and external drives.

I love the fact that I have the option, even though I don't always fill the ports.

orion123

Jan 3, 2006, 12:27 PM

I believe you maybe confusing Macosxrumors.com with Macosrumors.com.

Exactly. macosxrumors.com is pretty good. And they don't put out many outlandish rumors. macosrumors.com on the other hand is complete drivel. Their latest hypothesis is that OS X (non-server) will split into 2 OSes: MacOS X and MacOSXi, one for pros, one for consumers. That's typical, and they reprint other's rumors, pre-date-stamp them, and make them sound like their own "sources." They need to be taken down.

(end thread hijack)

papersushi

Jan 3, 2006, 12:32 PM

FireWire has consistent speed, speed claimed by USB 2.0 is rated as burst speed. In the real world, even FW400 has much better performance than USB 2.0, no need to even mention FW800.

That's the reason why you very very rarely see if not never see digital camcorder uses USB for video transfer. (Most USB ports on the DV camcorders are for using it as a USB webcam not for video capture or transfer, such as Canon).

If Apple decides to drop FW ports, then there is no need for them even to ship iMovie with the machine at all. I don't understand why people could possibly think this rumor is creditable. Apple could be brain dead if they do that.

artifex

Jan 3, 2006, 12:43 PM

Exactly. macosxrumors.com is pretty good. And they don't put out many outlandish rumors. macosrumors.com on the other hand is complete drivel. Their latest hypothesis is that OS X will split into 2 OSes: MacOS X and MacOSXi, one for pros, one for consumers. That's typical, and they reprint other's rumors, pre-date-stamp them, and make them sound like their own "sources." They need to be taken down.
(end thread hijack)

Yah, why would they make a MacOS X and MacOSXi, when they already have MacOS X and MacOS X Server? :)

danielwsmithee

Jan 3, 2006, 12:46 PM

bigandy

Jan 3, 2006, 12:50 PM

the IT person couldn't administer a toaster so talking to them about it is useless

thankyou, you are the first person on macrumors to make me fall off my chair.

:)

nagromme

Jan 3, 2006, 01:03 PM

Now this rumors makes a little more sense!

Not that I've ever run out of USB ports--but I'm sure Mac Mini owners do if they don't use a keyboard or display like Apple's, with a hub built in.

w_parietti22

Jan 3, 2006, 01:09 PM

Randall

Jan 3, 2006, 01:16 PM

Relax everyone. Apple's new Intel machines will all ship with FireWire 400 support. There is no reason not to, and many reasons to do (stated above). Perhaps they will/could drop FW800 in favor of external SATA conntecor? FW800 has not taken off at all really, so there would be no harm in pulling that plug. FW400 seems like it's here to stay. FW400 is just as good as USB 2.0, if not better. I know USB 2.0 has theoretical higher transfer rates, but in real life I think that FW400 beats it out.

NYmacAttack

Jan 3, 2006, 01:33 PM

p0intblank

Jan 3, 2006, 01:48 PM

If all this is true, then I am extremely happy. I don't want to see FireWire go anywhere any time soon. As far as the battle between FireWire and USB 2.0... FireWire wins hands down, technically speaking.

hob

Jan 3, 2006, 01:53 PM

Personally, I take my iBook everywhere. The Modem is very usefull for sending and recieving faxes, and connecting to the 'net in places where there is no wireless or broadband connection.

The Ethernet port is good for connecting to networks that don't have wireless, or even just to another computer (I always carry a patch cable).

The Firewire port is great for connect two mac's, for connecting to my DV cam and external drives.

I love the fact that I have the option, even though I don't always fill the ports.

Well, you should keep hold of you iBook then!

I was freakin out for about 2 seconds till i realised - this doesn't REALLY affect me that much, if USB2 is the way forward, then Apple will sort us out. If they continue with firewire, then they will - the truth is we won't know till MWSF at the earliest, and our current macs wont all suddenly morph into non-firewire supporting behemoths, will they?

Sunrunner

Jan 3, 2006, 02:23 PM

Well, you should keep hold of you iBook then!

I was freakin out for about 2 seconds till i realised - this doesn't REALLY affect me that much, if USB2 is the way forward, then Apple will sort us out. If they continue with firewire, then they will - the truth is we won't know till MWSF at the earliest, and our current macs wont all suddenly morph into non-firewire supporting behemoths, will they?

This topic has been done over several times before. Short answer, Apple CANNOT drop Firewire from hardware anytime soon; too much Pro hardware relies on it, and Apple is NOT about to alienate them.

slu

Jan 3, 2006, 02:24 PM

My brother got a camcorder for Christmas and it only came with a USB cable. Will that work out of the box with a Mac and iMovie??

No, you need a 4 to 6 pin Firewire cable.

Why camcorders don't ship with these is beyond me.

Sunrunner

Jan 3, 2006, 02:26 PM

No, you need a 4 to 6 pin Firewire cable.

Why camcorders don't ship with these is beyond me.

The connector is smaller and thusly easier to integrate on small electronic devices. Sony is the big pusher of the 4-pin FW connector; they had it branded as iLink and pushed the technology on all of their devices.

Randall

Jan 3, 2006, 02:36 PM

Firewire easily beats USB on transfer speed. Thats why camcorders use it. I would doubt they would put an external SAT connector on a laptop.Sure. I said that FW400 beats out USB 2.0, even though USB 2.0 has higher theoretical burst transfer rates then FireWire 400 does.

Why do you think that they would not put eSATA connectors on a laptop? It beats the hell out of FireWire 400 for external hard drives, and it seems to me like it has more of a future then FireWire 800, which I still have yet to see any devices for it. However, I have seen many new external hard drives have support for external SATA connectors.

So I say, keep FW400, and replace FW800 with external SATA. It makes sense.

USB 2.0 = 480Mb/s
Firewire 400 = 400Mb/s
Firewire 800 = 800Mb/s
SATA = 1,200Mb/s or 3,000Mb/s

Randall

Jan 3, 2006, 02:44 PM

The connector is smaller and thusly easier to integrate on small electronic devices. Sony is the big pusher of the 4-pin FW connector; they had it branded as iLink and pushed the technology on all of their devices.I think he was saying why don't the camcorders ship with a 4-pin to 6-pin connector. The 4-pin connector makes perfect sense to use with electronics that aren't utilizing the power feature of FireWire, since the 4-pin connector is small and low profile, it integrates well with modern electronics that continue to get smaller and more advanced.

rhashem

Jan 3, 2006, 04:00 PM

Why would Apple drop Firewire support? Just to fit in? Most PC laptops have Firewire these days. I know my 3-year-old Dell does!

AUBPsych

Jan 3, 2006, 04:34 PM

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 05:06 PM

Not that I've ever run out of USB ports--but I'm sure Mac Mini owners do if they don't use a keyboard or display like Apple's, with a hub built in.
Really? Don't have many devices, do you?

My PowerMac G4 only included two USB ports. Used them both immediately and was forced to buy an external powered hub in order to connect my:

Keybaord (with mouse daisy-chained)
Printer
Camera
Card reader
Game controller

I would need even more parts if my tape drive and scanner weren't FireWire, and if I didn't also purchase a USB 2.0 PCI card for my flash-drive and iPod.

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 05:08 PM

... Perhaps they will/could drop FW800 in favor of external SATA conntecor?
How does this help?

SATA can't support more than a small number of drives (and usually need to be hacked in order to support more than one). It also won't support tape drives, scanners, video cameras, or any of the other things FW ports are used for.

BlueRevolution

Jan 3, 2006, 05:11 PM

0MGZ GUYS!!! We NEED FireWire to go! It's the only way to make PBs thinner! Isn't this the right concept here? Someone using what happened with the iPods?

I'd like to direct your attention to the attached picture. clearly, the DVI out, S-video and Ethernet ports are the ones getting in the way of a smaller PB. it could certainly get smaller by replacing S-video and DVI with a single mini-DVI port (you can't use both at the same time anyway, ship it with mini-DVI to DVI and mini-DVI to S-video adapters) and replacing the Ethernet connector with a FW800 external network device (same form factor as the Apple modem, ships with the PB too). I doubt the internal modem will stay. just give us 2 FW800 ports and 2 or 3 USB ports and I don't think anyone would complain.

edit: attached the picture :p

Photorun

Jan 3, 2006, 05:17 PM

1- Macosxrumors.com just make up stuff as they go. Stop reprinting what they write.

2- 1 Firewire port is what's currently offered on the PowerBook, this is nothing new. One of FireWire's greatest asset is that you need only 1 port as all devices are hub-able.

3- FireWire is NECESSARY. Without it, no video editing (err, iMovie, Final Cutm hello? Apple is king here!). Also, you can boot off of a FireWire drive, you can connect 2 Macs in target disk mode to transfer file in a super easy way (that's what Apple use in Tiger when you launch a new Mac for the first time!).

Also, it's despite what the on paper numbers claimed FW400 is faster than USB2.0, to say nothing of FW800 which allows you to run uncompressed HD from an external drive (1 stream) in real time!

All these things make FireWire far.... FAR superior to USB2.

Thank you for posting exactly what I was going to say, hopefully readers will see your comment before opening their mouths thinking they should give two rats asses about this sites "reporting" or read your post here again if they tune in later.

Move along folks, nothing of actual info to see here, Firewire is alive and well and reports of it's death are, as always, greatly exaggerated.

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 05:22 PM

... replacing the Ethernet connector with a FW800 external network device (same form factor as the Apple modem, ships with the PB too). I doubt the internal modem will stay. just give us 2 FW800 ports and 2 or 3 USB ports and I don't think anyone would complain.
Anybody who takes their PowerBook on the road will complain.

When travelling, you often don't have access to wireless networks. Ethernet and modem are necessary when travelling. If they require external dongles, then these are more devices you have to remember to pack, and devices that will cost a lot of money to replace if they get lost or damaged.

Remember all the PCMCIA modems and Ethernet interfaces that required proprietary dongles? They got lost and damaged all the time, and cost almost as much as a new interface if you needed to buy a replacement.

A lot of people (myself included) were very happy when computers started shipping with these devices built-in, putting an end to the madness. There's no way I'm going to ask for all that nonsense to start again.

BornAgainMac

Jan 3, 2006, 07:40 PM

I predict FW400 will just be replaced with FW800. With a cable you can still use existing FW400 devices USB 2.0 is rated at 480 and it sounded like it was better to the average Joe consumer in comparison. Now FW800 can be the king both in real performance, specs, and additional functionality.

Mystery solved with the Firewire rumor.

avkills

Jan 3, 2006, 10:37 PM

....to say nothing of FW800 which allows you to run uncompressed HD from an external drive (1 stream) in real time!

I seriously don't think so, FW800 peaks at 100MB/sec:

UC (uncompressed) 8bit 720p 30fps is 55MB/sec
UC 10bit 720p 30fps is 75MB/sec

Those two you might get away with, but I doubt it; a single drive or even 2 raided together are probably not fast enough. On paper the protocol is fast enough, but good luck finding a drive that will do it. The same format DVCPRO-HD 720p is only 7+ MB/sec.

UC 1080i/p 8bit or 10bit.... no chance in hell.

Although you can stream uncompressed SD 4:2:2 10bit video over Firewire800 using a G-RAID or G-RAID Pro.

-mark

shamino

Jan 3, 2006, 11:42 PM

I seriously don't think so, FW800 peaks at 100MB/sec:

UC (uncompressed) 8bit 720p 30fps is 55MB/sec
UC 10bit 720p 30fps is 75MB/sec
...
UC 1080i/p 8bit or 10bit.... no chance in hell.
Several years ago, my employer (a manufacturer of carrier-class networking gear) ran a demonstration involving uncompressed 1080i HD video. The stream was approximately 1.5Gbps. About twice the theoretical top speed of FW800.

Still, 720p may be doable over FW800, if the drive can keep up. Of course, I don't think most FW-ATA bridge chips are fast enough. Maybe possible with a FW-SCSI bridge, however, since FW uses SCSI protocol - meaning much less overhead. Unfortunately, I've never heard of a drive that uses a FW-SCSI bridge.

Randall

Jan 3, 2006, 11:46 PM

How does this help?

SATA can't support more than a small number of drives (and usually need to be hacked in order to support more than one). It also won't support tape drives, scanners, video cameras, or any of the other things FW ports are used for.First of all, it's 50% faster then firewire 800, second of all, show me just one firewire 800 product that you actually use? THey are all FW400 at this point, so might as well take SATA as a next step for external HDs, since it's way faster.

Peace

Jan 3, 2006, 11:55 PM

First of all, it's 50% faster then firewire 800, second of all, show me just one firewire 800 product that you actually use? THey are all FW400 at this point, so might as well take SATA as a next step for external HDs, since it's way faster.

I can see where S-ATA can be useful for external HD's but what of all the other external devices like burners,scanners,cameras,video cameras etc. ?

Switching from firewire to S-ATA would be a very bad move.

avkills

Jan 4, 2006, 12:23 AM

First of all, it's 50% faster then firewire 800, second of all, show me just one firewire 800 product that you actually use? THey are all FW400 at this point, so might as well take SATA as a next step for external HDs, since it's way faster.

I use G-technology G-RAIDs at work and they are indeed true FW800 devices. They have 2 drives in them, with a hardware RAID; one drive writes inside to outside and one outside to inside, which makes it so filling the drive does not slow the performance down.

I have run uncompressed 10bit SD video from these drives out a AJA Video IoLA Firewire bridge component video to our Sony DFS-700 Switching system...has been flawless so far. I also do the normal recording chores like going to BetaSP or DVCAM, etc etc.

Host CPU is a dual 2Ghz G5. Drives are connected to a PCI FW800 card since the AJA device sucks all the bandwidth from the internal FW bus. The AJA bridge kicks butt, it supports DV25, DV50, uncompressed 8bit and uncompressed 10bit SD video over FW400.

-mark

synp

Jan 4, 2006, 05:24 AM

I'd like to direct your attention to the attached picture. clearly, the DVI out, S-video and Ethernet ports are the ones getting in the way of a smaller PB. it could certainly get smaller by replacing S-video and DVI with a single mini-DVI port (you can't use both at the same time anyway, ship it with mini-DVI to DVI and mini-DVI to S-video adapters) and replacing the Ethernet connector with a FW800 external network device (same form factor as the Apple modem, ships with the PB too). I doubt the internal modem will stay. just give us 2 FW800 ports and 2 or 3 USB ports and I don't think anyone would complain.

Of course we would complain. The Ethernet connector is a must. Not all places have wireless, or else it's costly and it's always way slower than wired.

Believe it or not, the modem is still very useful. Lots of places make you use a fax instead of email. A computer is a wonderful fax machine. The modem port needs to stay.

BlueRevolution

Jan 4, 2006, 05:32 AM

Platform

Jan 4, 2006, 07:15 AM

FW rocks.....Migration, Target Disk Mode etc.

What about FW 1600 that supports both 400 and 800 too ;)

Randall

Jan 4, 2006, 09:42 AM

I'm afraid things don't look good for the modem port even if you don't listen to my random babbling. every updated Mac in recent months has removed the internal modem (iMac and PM) and if anything it makes more sense to axe the modem from a mobile computer for the meager space savings involved. ethernet I'm sure will be around for a long time to come, but it too is certainly something that Apple could make into an external device to shave off a few extra millimeters from the machine.They will never ditch the ethernet RJ45 connector, it's like saying they'll take out the power adapter because it runs on batteries. That's crazy talk. Ok so I shouldn't say "never" but if a change like that comes, then they will replace it with a new "wired" standard. There will always be a physical wired way to get onto a network. There has to be.

And yes, for the few who still use dial up modems, you can get a PC card for the modem jack, and have access that way. I suppose you can make the same argument for the ethernet jack, but I don't see them ditching it for a long long time.

SiliconAddict

Jan 4, 2006, 10:17 AM

I'd like to direct your attention to the attached picture. clearly, the DVI out, S-video and Ethernet ports are the ones getting in the way of a smaller PB. it could certainly get smaller by replacing S-video and DVI with a single mini-DVI port (you can't use both at the same time anyway, ship it with mini-DVI to DVI and mini-DVI to S-video adapters) and replacing the Ethernet connector with a FW800 external network device (same form factor as the Apple modem, ships with the PB too). I doubt the internal modem will stay. just give us 2 FW800 ports and 2 or 3 USB ports and I don't think anyone would complain.

edit: attached the picture :p

Gah I never looked at the ports on a PowerBook that intently before. Clearly Apple is going to have to drop some functionality on the *Book to make it thinner or at the very least move to a dongle device which I doubt they would do. Crap. :(

PS- Ethernet isn't going anywhere. Apple would drop the keyboard before they drop the NIC.

SiliconAddict

Jan 4, 2006, 10:21 AM

Guys. Has anyone heard anything new on Wireless Firewire? There was a major buzz about this 2 years ago and then nothing.

Randall

Jan 4, 2006, 11:14 AM

Gah I never looked at the ports on a PowerBook that intently before. Clearly Apple is going to have to drop some functionality on the *Book to make it thinner or at the very least move to a dongle device which I doubt they would do. Crap. :(

PS- Ethernet isn't going anywhere. Apple would drop the keyboard before they drop the NIC.I actually think that the 17 and 15" models are thin enough as is. if they try to thin it out any more then the internal devices themeselves as well as the external plugs become an issue. Besides, if it gets any thinner, it's going to feel flimsy and cheap unless it's made out of some very sturdy material. I agree with you, the Network Interface Card is here to stay.

Guys. Has anyone heard anything new on Wireless Firewire? There was a major buzz about this 2 years ago and then nothing.Honestly I don't see the point. As I mentioned before, the devices that use the FW400 6-pin for power will be rendered useless in a wireless scheme. We all know you can't have wireless power :p

shamino

Jan 4, 2006, 12:12 PM

I'm afraid things don't look good for the modem port even if you don't listen to my random babbling. every updated Mac in recent months has removed the internal modem (iMac and PM) and if anything it makes more sense to axe the modem from a mobile computer for the meager space savings involved.
Actually, trends show quite the opposite.

Modems have flip-flopped in desktop systems since the very first Macs. Sometimes bundled, sometimes BTO internal options, sometimes bundled external, and sometimes third-party.

Laptops, however, have never dropped them since their first inclusion.

It also makes more sense from a useability standpoint. Portable systems need to connect to a wide variety of different infrastructures, and there are a lot of places where telephone is the best you've got. Desktop systems, however, only have to connect to what's on-site, so a buyer without an immediate need for a modem will probably never develop a need to use one later on.

Sunrunner

Jan 4, 2006, 12:14 PM

I think he was saying why don't the camcorders ship with a 4-pin to 6-pin connector. The 4-pin connector makes perfect sense to use with electronics that aren't utilizing the power feature of FireWire, since the 4-pin connector is small and low profile, it integrates well with modern electronics that continue to get smaller and more advanced.

They dont ship with an adaptor becuase consumer electronics companies are cheep and would rather make you pay a few dollars to get one as an accessory.

Peace

Jan 4, 2006, 12:26 PM

Guys. Has anyone heard anything new on Wireless Firewire? There was a major buzz about this 2 years ago and then nothing.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1906230,00.asp

PCMacUser

Jan 4, 2006, 01:52 PM

If the talk is about dropping FW from the iBook, then I guess that would be ok.
No it wouldn't be okay!

hob

Jan 4, 2006, 02:04 PM

I really think that they could trim more off the 15" model, until the ports were actually on the very very edge of the device...

johnnyjibbs

Jan 5, 2006, 04:57 AM

To be honest, even the 12" PB is thin enough. Apple has always said that these are FULL FEATURED notebooks. (e.g. the 12" PB is/was the smallest "full featured" notebook in the world). If you start stripping off modem, ethernet, disc drive off them to save some space, it loses its full featured status and the extras that you have to lug around just in case outweigh any benefits of a thinner, lighter design.

I don't think they will lose any of the ports. The 15 and 17" could both move to mini DVI to be consistent with the 12" PB, with included adaptors, but there's not much more that they can remove. And as for more USB 2 ports - hell - I've got 2 ports on my PB and I've never needed to use both of them at the same time!!!

Give me 2 USB + 1 Firewire any day over 4 USB ports.

Lacero

Jan 5, 2006, 05:26 AM

No it wouldn't be okay!
Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

semaja2

Jan 5, 2006, 08:16 AM

i dont see why they would drop firewire it is far better the usb, reasons why

although fw800 isnt used so much as fw400 it still supports speeds near double of usb2

it is the chosen connection by practilcy every video camera company

firewire disk mode...etc

firewire is also a network device making it very easy to network 2 firewire device without extra hardware

usb runs as stupid hubs which means everydevice gets a shared bandwidth where as firewire is dedicated to each port

anywho knowing that port was missing on my ibook would make me a sad sad boy

shamino

Jan 5, 2006, 10:43 AM

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!
Are you deliberately trying to offend as many people as possible in one sentence?

So you think only a "USB loving newbie" would ever want to buy an iBook? I suppose you have decided to ignore everything I say from now on until I cough up another $2000 to replace mine with a PowerBook?

If you were trying to make a point, you've failed miserably. You've instead come across like a rabid flame-baiter that is seeking admission to my kill-file.

Sunrunner

Jan 5, 2006, 01:21 PM

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

Yeah, because people want to fork over hundreds of dollars for discs and memory sticks... :rolleyes: There is a reason that camcorder type never caught on. Even better, imagine the memory stick requirement if your working in HD... yeah, that would be fun :rolleyes: . Some people are so closed minded it hurts.

jbh001

Jan 5, 2006, 05:42 PM

What about FW 1600 that supports both 400 and 800 too ;)

Hopefully what this really means is that p1394c (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/) is about to see the light of day--maybe by June 2006. That means that Apple might get rid of all firewire ports since the ethernet port can then do double duty as the firewire port. Just imagine a RJ45 jack on one end of the cable, and a legacy FW400 or FW800 jack on the other end. One less port; same or more functionallity.

More info: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/
More info: http://www.teener.com/FireWire/index.html

shamino

Jan 5, 2006, 07:12 PM

Just imagine a RJ45 jack on one end of the cable, and a legacy FW400 or FW800 jack on the other end. One less port; same or more functionallity.
Means an expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen.

Just like the dongles you used to need for PCMCIA network interfaces. Those were trivial devices - just a cable and connector - and they were difficult and expensive to replace.

An actual FireWire-based Ethernet interface would cost much more (since it would be an actual NIC, not just a cable) but it would be just as vulnerable to loss and damage.

No thanks.

Cramming more ports on the side of a computer is a problem, but if it comes at the cost of making it more annoying to travel with the computer, I'd rather they not bother.

fluidinclusion

Jan 5, 2006, 09:44 PM

What about "Firewire Target Disk Mode?" That is like the coolest thing... unless they make it work with USB, unless it already does.

I've used Target disk mode many times to transfer files. I even used it once on a friends Mac to rescue his files before his drive died. (I could copy them with Target disk mode, but his machine wouldn't boot.)

jbh001

Jan 5, 2006, 10:09 PM

[deleted]

jbh001

Jan 5, 2006, 10:13 PM

Means an expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen.

Just like the dongles you used to need for PCMCIA network interfaces. Those were trivial devices - just a cable and connector - and they were difficult and expensive to replace.
Did you even bother to follow any of the links and actually read up on the proposal?

From http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/1394cIntroKevinBrown.pdf
For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket labeled "network", and works for any kind of connection.
If any there is any "expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen," it would be the laptop or computer itself. And that is different from the current scenario how?

Who said anything about dongles? There are no dongles involved, just a firewire cable with an RJ-45 connector on one or both ends. How would this cable be more "difficult and expensive to replace" than existing FW cables or standard CAT5 ethernet cables?

Perphaps your "expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen" is this:
Allow a simple hub-like-thing to be built that:
– Connects all endpoints that negotiate to Ethernet using standard hub or switch technology
– Connects all endpoints that negotiate to 1394 using standard PHY or 1394.1 technology
– Bridges IP data between the two network domains
Again, how would this hub be more "difficult and expensive to replace" or more "easily get broken, lost or stolen" than existing hubs? How is this different from the current situation?

[Edna Mode voice] What are you talking about! [/Edna Mode Voice]

fluidinclusion

Jan 5, 2006, 10:22 PM

No, you need a 4 to 6 pin Firewire cable.

Why camcorders don't ship with these is beyond me.

Mine did. Cheap Canon.

johnnyjibbs

Jan 6, 2006, 05:03 AM

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!
Just because some new camcorders now come with DVDs, hard drives and USB connections doesn't mean that the average consumer like me (and therefore those likely to buy a new iBook) can afford to go and get a new camcorder and everything to make it work. They would more likely choose NOT to get a Mac for this reason. Equally, as I and others have said already, iMovie and iChat* currently ONLY support FireWire. Sure, the new versions in January may change that but there should always be a transition period. Just like the fact that Mac OS X still supports G3s even though Apple doesn't sell computers with this chip any more.

A dormant Firewire port on an iBook does not take up much space or cost much but it sure as hell is necessary for some people. No amount of USB ports will allow my FireWire LaCie external drive hook up to it. Not to mention that USB throughput sucks and I'm fortunate to be able to choose Firewire over USB2 for my iPod syncing (I still have an old one).

Plus, dropping Firewire from some Mac models adds to customer confusion and creates the scenario where some iPods will not work with new Macs. Apple and Macs and all about one package that fits together sublimely. End of story.

* Unofficial third party hack required for USB camera support with iChat.

shamino

Jan 7, 2006, 03:12 PM

Did you even bother to follow any of the links and actually read up on the proposal?

From http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/1394cIntroKevinBrown.pdf
Had you linked to this page in your post, I would've posted a different reply.

The page you provided was an incredibly brief (and not useful) abstract, and links to a lot of password-protected standards documents.

That being said, it is very unclear whether a simple cable will allow an unmodified FW device to attach to this port without the proposed "hub-like-thing" device in between.

Note that the goal is to "Not interfere with any legacy 802.3 device". Says nothing about interfering with legacy FW devices.

Finally, even if it works the way you say it will, using such a port on a laptop computer assumes that the user will never need to use both Ethernet and FW at once (such as someone using a LAN and a hard drive at once). Otherwise, you will need an external breakout box - which is something that can easily be lost, broken or stolen. And until/unless this standard becomes extremely popular, it won't be a cheap device. (GigE hubs were terribly expensive for many years before the tech became popular enough to drive the price down. And even today, one costa over $100.)

Bastich

Jan 9, 2006, 03:44 AM

This topic has been done over several times before. Short answer, Apple CANNOT drop Firewire from hardware anytime soon; too much Pro hardware relies on it, and Apple is NOT about to alienate them.

That's it in a nutshell... but what if it's not a pro system? Apple could easily release a stripped-down iBook to entice the switchers, just like the Mac Mini did. They certainly don't need Firewire, nor do starving students who also might consider such a system. It would be a shame to lose the DV camcorder features of iMovie, but imagine how much they could slash the price if they cut it and Bluetooth. It would be stupider to cut Airport, in my opinion.

:cool:

Randall

Jan 9, 2006, 09:51 AM

What a supprise. :rolleyes:

There was never any doubt in my mind that FireWire would stick around. Even though it's Apple-based technology, it's not like FW400 (IEEE 1394) doesn't exist in the PC world. FW400 comes on just about evey new PC motherboard I've seen these days, and I think the stronghold for FireWire is getting larger if anything.

Sunrunner

Jan 9, 2006, 10:39 AM

That's it in a nutshell... but what if it's not a pro system? Apple could easily release a stripped-down iBook to entice the switchers, just like the Mac Mini did. They certainly don't need Firewire, nor do starving students who also might consider such a system. It would be a shame to lose the DV camcorder features of iMovie, but imagine how much they could slash the price if they cut it and Bluetooth. It would be stupider to cut Airport, in my opinion.

:cool:

If Firewire is going to be removed out of anything, it will be the iBooks to be sure. But even that is a stretch, as it is hard to justify iMovie without a Firewire connector for your camera...

guillermo

Jan 9, 2006, 11:25 AM

People are crazy! :eek:

Firewire port is the main connection for professional audio and video equipment. This port is used with 90% of serious audio interfaces that I know. Top PC laptops include firewire port today for these reason.

Apple will not remove this port, it's obvious. :D

ilnyckyj

Jan 9, 2006, 11:59 AM

I do music recording, and i have a Digidesign 002 which runs via firewire. I'll be really reallly pissed if i can't use it with my mac.

jbh001

Jan 9, 2006, 12:03 PM

Had you linked to this page in your post, I would've posted a different reply.

The page you provided was an incredibly brief (and not useful) abstract, and links to a lot of password-protected standards documents.

Thats and odd statement to make considering that the first link in the page to an external document is this:

"Kevin Brown of Broadcom has prepared a short summary of p1394c technology. (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/1394cIntroKevinBrown.pdf)"

And it is only the second document link from the beginning of the page.

Sorry that I can't do your reading and web surfing for you. That and telepathy are skills I am still trying to master.

That being said, it is very unclear whether a simple cable will allow an unmodified FW device to attach to this port without the proposed "hub-like-thing" device in between.

Note that the goal is to "Not interfere with any legacy 802.3 device". Says nothing about interfering with legacy FW devices.

Sorry that I can't analyze and process your reading for you either. What part of...
"For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket that is labeled “network”, and works for any kind of connection."
...means leagacy devices, be they ethernet or 1394, won't work?

And what part of ...
"Allow appropriate negotiation to be done so that
the endpoints can select which protocols to be
used:
– 10BASE-T Ethernet
– 100BASE-TX Ethernet
– S100 1394b
– 1000BASE-T Ethernet
– S800 1394c"
...means that 1394c won't be backward compatible with 1394b, which is already backward compatible with 1394a?

What part of this prohibits having a CAT5 cable with a RJ-45 connector on one end and a 4-pin FW connector, 6-pin FW connector, 9-pin FW connector, or RJ-45 connector on the other? Especially when the "network" port on the computer will auto-negotiate between ethernet, FW400, and FW800 depending on what kind of signal it is getting?

Finally, even if it works the way you say it will, using such a port on a laptop computer assumes that the user will never need to use both Ethernet and FW at once (such as someone using a LAN and a hard drive at once). Otherwise, you will need an external breakout box -

True. Or the FW port stays put & the ethernet port gets increased functionality (IP over 1394). Win/Win.

- which is something that can easily be lost, broken or stolen. And until/unless this standard becomes extremely popular, it won't be a cheap device. (GigE hubs were terribly expensive for many years before the tech became popular enough to drive the price down. And even today, one costa over $100.)

<sigh> Now were just back to FUD.

shamino

Jan 9, 2006, 01:56 PM

Sorry that I can't analyze and process your reading for you either. What part of...
"For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket that is labeled “network”, and works for any kind of connection."
...means leagacy devices, be they ethernet or 1394, won't work?
The spec defines an elaborate negotiation protocol for determining FW vs. Ethernet. If the remote device doesn't participate in the negotiation, how is it going to know what you're using? The slides you're so fond of pointing out seem to indicate that they resolve this by assuming Ethernet in the absence of anything else.

Or are you claiming that existing FW devices already support this protocol that hasn't even been finalized yet?
And what part of ...
"Allow appropriate negotiation to be done so that
the endpoints can select which protocols to be
used:
– 10BASE-T Ethernet
– 100BASE-TX Ethernet
– S100 1394b
– 1000BASE-T Ethernet
– S800 1394c"
...means that 1394c won't be backward compatible with 1394b, which is already backward compatible with 1394a?
Read that line more closely.

It's talking about a negotiation protocol, with which the endpoints may select one of those protocols. Legacy devices will not participate in the negotiation, making the range of possibly-selected protocols irrelevant.
What part of this prohibits having a CAT5 cable with a RJ-45 connector on one end and a 4-pin FW connector, 6-pin FW connector, 9-pin FW connector, or RJ-45 connector on the other? Especially when the "network" port on the computer will auto-negotiate between ethernet, FW400, and FW800 depending on what kind of signal it is getting?
It is not at all clear from the slides you're presenting that it will be possible to select FW protocol if the device doesn't participate in the negotiation.

Maybe the draft spec defines a way to make all this work - allowing a host to select the right protocol in the presence of legacy devices of all kinds, but the slides you're referencing do not say anything about this. They only talk about what can be done after protocols have been negotiated, and the diagrams consistently refer to specialized interface chips on both ends of the cable.

jbh001

Jan 9, 2006, 10:26 PM

Maybe the draft spec defines a way to make all this work - allowing a host to select the right protocol in the presence of legacy devices of all kinds, ... There! That's it! What you said! That's what I've been trying to say all this time!

This is the way all the information about p1394c reads to me. I guess I'm just coming at this from a different perspective from yours. (My point of view is always profoundly obvious to me. Why does the rest of the world have such a hard time seeing it my way? :D )

mattsgotredhair

Jan 9, 2006, 10:28 PM

boo-hoo-hoo, i'm not sympathetic.

The way i see it is one less ungainly hole to see on a cute iBook or PB. While they are at it, get rid of the modem port and ethernet port too. Give me a beautiful stylist laptop with long battery life and wireless access.
Let not cater to people who like to stick every which wires that they can find to their laptop.:D

Cinch

Why do you even include PB's in your statement? Obviously if you are only concerned with a computer having long battery life and wireless access then you're probably not going to need the POWER of a POWERbook. So take your iBooks, I'd like to continue using my PowerBook to do things it was more intended to do.