Why does Apple love firewire so much?

[Luigi239]

Why does Apple love firewire so much? Many functions on a Mac are firewire only, such as the migration assistant, and target disk mode. It really doesn't make sense to use firewire anymore, as usb 2.0 is a faster (then firewire 400 at least), and more widely available specification.

Wouldn't it make sense to let users have an option between firewire and usb, instead of locking users into a specification that not that many people use? Just another little thing about my mac that bugs me. ;)

[CanadaRAM]

Why does Apple love firewire so much?
Because it works. Because it existed before USB 2. Because it is a standard in the Digital Video field.

Many functions on a Mac are firewire only, such as the migration assistant, and target disk mode. It really doesn't make sense to use firewire anymore, as usb 2.0 is a faster (then firewire 400 at least), and more widely available specification.


Wrong. USB 2.0 is faster on paper (480 vs 400 MBs) but Firewire is almost twice as fast in real-world, Finder file transfer tests (Yes, I benchmarked it myself).

[xUKHCx]

Firewire is miles better than USB. Once you've tried it you wont go back.

[Luigi239]

Because it works. Because it existed before USB 2. Because it is a standard in the Digital Video field.



Wrong. USB 2.0 is faster on paper (480 vs 400 MBs) but Firewire is almost twice as fast in real-world, Finder file transfer tests (Yes, I benchmarked it myself).

Hmm, I never knew that. Why does firewire get better real world speeds?

Also, even if firewire is better, why doesn't Apple give users a choice? I would have liked to get a few things off of my Macbook when it died, but the other Mac in my house doesn't have firewire. Even if it was going to be dog slow, I would have at least had the option.

[MisterMe]

...

Wouldn't it make sense to let users have an option between firewire and usb, instead of locking users into a specification that not that many people use? Just another little thing about my mac that bugs me. ;)By law, every HDTV set-top box includes FireWire. Every digital camcorder and editing tape deck geared toward professionals includes FireWire. Apple invented FireWire. Wintel box OEMs may consider it to be a burden on their customers, but not Apple. Resources like FireWire are among the reasons that people buy Macs and developers write applications for the platform. They have absolute assurance that their applications will run. Developers don't have to expend valuable resources writing drivers to support third-party hardware. They can concentrate their energies on their applications. Users don't have to worry about installing drivers when they buy new peripherals or applications. They can just plug-in their peripherals and get to work.

[kgarner]

Why does firewire get better real world speeds?

Because Firewire was designed for video and is capable of sustained transfer rates at or near it maximum throughput of 400 Mbps. USB is designed for burst transfers. That is that you may get brief bursts of over 400 Mbps but they are not sustained over the course of the transfer.

In most cases people are accessing relatively small files and so USB feels just as fast as Firewire. But when you start transferring large files like video, then there is a noticeable difference in the performance of the Firewire versus USB. I choose Firewire whenever possible myself.

[klymr]

Because Firewire was designed for video and is capable of sustained transfer rates at or near it maximum throughput of 400 Mbps. USB is designed for burst transfers. That is that you may get brief bursts of over 400 Mbps but they are not sustained over the course of the transfer.

In most cases people are accessing relatively small files and so USB feels just as fast as Firewire. But when you start transferring large files like video, then there is a noticeable difference in the performance of the Firewire versus USB. I choose Firewire whenever possible myself.

Hey, look at that, another Utah guy.

I myself am looking for a FW800 external HD, but can't decide on what to get. I am pretty sure I've ruled out USB 2.0 from this equation. ;)

[AdeFowler]

Let's not forget that Apple invented Firewire so they're bound to plug it (poor pun :o)

[Luigi239]

Because Firewire was designed for video and is capable of sustained transfer rates at or near it maximum throughput of 400 Mbps. USB is designed for burst transfers. That is that you may get brief bursts of over 400 Mbps but they are not sustained over the course of the transfer.

In most cases people are accessing relatively small files and so USB feels just as fast as Firewire. But when you start transferring large files like video, then there is a noticeable difference in the performance of the Firewire versus USB. I choose Firewire whenever possible myself.

Allright, well that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

But still, why doesn't Apple give the option of using usb? Even if firewire is better, users should still get a choice.

[klymr]

But still, why doesn't Apple give the option of using usb? Even if firewire is better, users should still get a choice.

Mostly because they can do whatever they want.

[Warbrain]

Everything I wanted to say was pretty much said. The faster over-all speed, the fact that it's built in on all Macs, and that it is THE standard for video.

[Rodimus Prime]

Allright, well that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

But still, why doesn't Apple give the option of using usb? Even if firewire is better, users should still get a choice.

simple apple does not believe in choices. Apple like to shove what ever they think is best on people and refuse to give them the option to choose.

[AdeFowler]

But still, why doesn't Apple give the option of using usb? Even if firewire is better, users should still get a choice.
Okay, apart from Migration Assistant and Target disk mode, which are basically the same thing, where else does Apple force Firewire on us?

[cantthinkofone]

firewire is faster than usb because the usb bus is being shared by many different devices. Mouse, keyboard, internal parts. Firewire is stand alone. I usually got around 40-50MB a second with firewire 400 with an external drive. A guy i work with says his firewire 800 drive is actually faster than his internal hard drive lol.

[Eraserhead]

simple apple does not believe in choices. Apple like to shove what ever they think is best on people and refuse to give them the option to choose.

Possibly its because USB cables in general are different at each end, (well all the ones I have anyway), so its not really worthwhile to make it work with USB too.

[Naimfan]

I think for all the reasons discussed above......

My personal favorite--Apple was instrumental in inventing it, insofar as any standard is "invented."

As for not allowing choice--sure Apple does. You always have the choice to NOT buy their products. And if USB2 is THAT important to you for some bizarre reason, don't buy a Mac! ;)

Best,

Bob

[kgarner]

Possibly its because USB cables in general are different at each end, (well all the ones I have anyway), so its not really worthwhile to make it work with USB too.

That's an excellent point I hadn't even considered. To support USB Target disk mode Apple would have to add a Type B USB connection on the Mac and it would only be used for that one purpose. Something that happens maybe only once in the life of the computer. Can't believe I missed that.

[MisterMe]

firewire is faster than usb because the usb bus is being shared by many different devices. Mouse, keyboard, internal parts. Firewire is stand alone. ...That's not it at all. Apple designed FireWire to replace SCSI, which was a parallel bus. Like SCSI, FireWire devices are bus masters. Each FireWire device may send and receive based on its own internal intelligence. Data does not have to pass through the CPU. Unlike SCSI, FireWire has no termination issues. USB is dumb. All data communicated over USB must pass through the CPU. Devices such as mice, keyboards, and such are low data rate devices. They are what USB was invented to handle. Later on, Intel claimed that USB could compete with FireWire. However, it was a claim that was never supported by evidence.

Prior to Apple's adoption of USB for the first iMac, the technology was very finicky. Wintel boxes shipped with USB ports, but nobody actually used them. People were perfectly happy with their parallel printer ports, RS-232 serial ports, and PS/2 keyboards and mice. I had to download drivers from Microsoft so that my secretary's Gateway running Windows 98 would accept USB flashdrives and so that my digital camera would upload pictures.

[szark]

But still, why doesn't Apple give the option of using usb? Even if firewire is better, users should still get a choice.

I'm not sure, but I believe the way that Firewire is designed makes it easier to implement Target Disk mode.

Also remember that USB 2.0 is a relatively new addition to Macs -- most Macs that you would be migrating from do not have USB 2.0.

[DoFoT9]

apple loves firewire so much because they helped to develop it.

and i think that fw400 is faster than usb2.0, they both use different transfer methods. fw has the better transmission methods to allow for the faster write/read speeds on the larger file sizes

[MacBoobsPro]

Because Firewire was designed for video and is capable of sustained transfer rates at or near it maximum throughput of 400 Mbps. USB is designed for burst transfers. That is that you may get brief bursts of over 400 Mbps but they are not sustained over the course of the transfer.

In most cases people are accessing relatively small files and so USB feels just as fast as Firewire. But when you start transferring large files like video, then there is a noticeable difference in the performance of the Firewire versus USB. I choose Firewire whenever possible myself.

I can vouch for that. I recently bought a 1TB external and decided to tranfser my 200GB iTunes library to it so it could continue to grow. I set up the drive so USB2 was the default setting and set about transfering the library. 5 hours later (there was still an hour to go) there was a power cut and had to start again.

This time I changed to firewire and it only took 2.5 hours to transfer.

[GimmeSlack12]

They are both pretty damn fast but I do find USB to be easier to find peripherals in.

Apple invented Firewire, thats why they still use it. But it has been slowly dying, and I don't see it sticking around for longer than another few years. USB on the other hand, its not going anywhere anytime soon.

[synth3tik]

Wrong. USB 2.0 is faster on paper (480 vs 400 MBs) but Firewire is almost twice as fast in real-world, Finder file transfer tests (Yes, I benchmarked it myself).


Totally agree. I switched my back up drive from Firewire to USB 2 to free up Firewire ports, and the data transfer is almost cut in half.

[QuarterSwede]

I can vouch for that. I recently bought a 1TB external and decided to tranfser my 200GB iTunes library to it so it could continue to grow. I set up the drive so USB2 was the default setting and set about transfering the library. 5 hours later (there was still an hour to go) there was a power cut and had to start again.

This time I changed to firewire and it only took 2.5 hours to transfer.
That's exactly the reason they don't give you a choice.

[DoFoT9]

That's exactly the reason they don't give you a choice.

doesnt firewire have a different method of actually sending the data accross.. the checksum is much much faster, making it way faster, even though it technically isnt faster..

[lag1090]

A guy i work with says his firewire 800 drive is actually faster than his internal hard drive lol.

The only way in which a FW 800 drive can be faster than an internal is if the internal is using a slower PATA connection than the external drive's PATA or SATA-FW 800 bridge. Otherwise, the internal drive must be more full than the external or have something wrong with it to be slower than an external drive (assuming that both drives are in the 3.5" form factor).

In a situation with two brand new drives of the same model, the external drive can only have the same maximum speed as the internal drive. This is due to the fact that there is no such thing as a FW 800 drive, only PATA and SATA drives. All external drives are are internal PATA or SATA drives connected to a PATA/SATA-FW 800 bridge. The only possible scenario where the external drive could be faster is if the external drive is a SATA drive, while the internal drive is a PATA drive. This would be highly unlikely, though, as the FW 800 conversion would take a small chunk out of performance.

It's highly likely that your coworker is either lying, or he doesn't know how to properly conduct speed testing.

[QuarterSwede]

doesnt firewire have a different method of actually sending the data accross.. the checksum is much much faster, making it way faster, even though it technically isnt faster..
As already stated, USB sends data in packets and Firewire basically streams it. Firewire uses a hardware chipset controller (which is why it isn't included in the iPod's anymore) and USB is controlled via software and thus the CPU.

[yg17]

They are both pretty damn fast but I do find USB to be easier to find peripherals in.

Apple invented Firewire, thats why they still use it. But it has been slowly dying, and I don't see it sticking around for longer than another few years. USB on the other hand, its not going anywhere anytime soon.


Firewire will be here in some form as long as digital video editing is here. USB by design, regardless of its maximum speed, just can't do video editing due to the rather erratic and bursty (if that's not a word, it is now :p) nature of it. Firewire is a nice, constant stream of data that's essential for video.

Eventually, eSATA may replace both USB and Firewire when it comes to external storage, but Firewire will still be around for video

[/V\acpower]

People seems to think that data transfer is all the same and that FireWire is only the USB for MAC.

[MisterMe]

... But it has been slowly dying, and I don't see it sticking around for longer than another few years. ...FireWire is not slowly dying. With the increasing deployment of HDTV--particularly as cable TV goes high-def--FireWire is increasing its market penetration.

[DoFoT9]

As already stated, USB sends data in packets and Firewire basically streams it. Firewire uses a hardware chipset controller (which is why it isn't included in the iPod's anymore) and USB is controlled via software and thus the CPU.

aaahh that makes sense :) thanks for that info. who would make such a sill yproduct such as USB then??

[Foxglove9]

What I wonder is. If Firewire 800 can run FW400 peripherals, then why on the macbook do they have just a FW400 port? Would it really cost that much extra to make it a 800 port instead?

[CanadaRAM]

What I wonder is. If Firewire 800 can run FW400 peripherals, then why on the macbook do they have just a FW400 port? Would it really cost that much extra to make it a 800 port instead?

Yup. It's not just the port, it is a more expensive controller chip. Granted it may only add $5 at manufacturing, but that's $25 at retail. Just look at the difference in price between a FW800 external enclosure, and a FW400 external enclosure.

An issue with using USB for target disk mode may be (and I don't know for a fact) due to USB needing much more CPU intervention, which means loading drivers and more of the OS before it will work. Also, until the intel machines, you couldn't boot a Mac from a USB drive.

When can a Firewire drive be faster than an internal?

When the internal is a 2.5" 4200 RPM or 5400 RPM laptop drive that is almost full, and the external is a large capacity 7200 RPM 3.5" drive that is empty and has a nice big 16 Mb buffer.

When a drive is over 50% full, new data is being written to the inner tracks of the drive, where much less data gets transferred per second (the track length -- that is, the number of bits that can pass under the heads in one revolution) is shorter on the inner tracks. It's not unusual for the performance of a drive to drop by half as it moves from outer to inner tracks.

This is double-bad if the drive started out as a 2.5" laptop size drive, where the fastest outer track is already way shorter than a desktop drive. Triple bad if it is a 4200 RPM drive.

A 3.5 inch drive, particularly a large capacity one with perpendicular recording (which packs more data bits per track-inch), can push far more data per revolution.

Capacity also has something to do with it. 60 GBs on an 80 Gb drive puts you squarely on the inner tracks. 60 GB on a 500 Gb drive is still operating in nearly the fastest tracks of the drive.

[DoFoT9]

^^ damn you beat me to it RAMy. i was going to say pretty much exactly that. or something close to it.

[solvs]

FireWire is dying!?! :eek: I don't think so. For those of us who use it, that's just crazy talk. Maybe eSATA eventually, as said above, but they're also moving beyond 400/800 to 1600 and 3200.

[samh004]

They are both pretty damn fast but I do find USB to be easier to find peripherals in.

Low and behold it was adopted by all Windows boxes over Firewire and thus, took the market by storm.

Apple invented Firewire, thats why they still use it. But it has been slowly dying, and I don't see it sticking around for longer than another few years. USB on the other hand, its not going anywhere anytime soon.

FireWire is not slowly dying. With the increasing deployment of HDTV--particularly as cable TV goes high-def--FireWire is increasing its market penetration.

If FW is dying, why did they include FW800 on the new iMacs, seems like they are expanding it's use at last.

I remember back in the days when I first got a Mac, looking at the PowerMacs and new computers of the time and hoping I'd some day own something so powerful.

I'd got a FW800 drive for backups when I got my PB and would look at Apple's FW (cache) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030603203915/www.apple.com/firewire/) page, marvelling at the day I'd be able to use FW1600 or FW3200... sad though, that day will never come.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030804014133/a48.g.akamai.net/7/48/51/6dd4a70d77107e/www.apple.com/firewire/images/ieeechart011503.gif

Or will it ? I haven't seen any references to it for a long time.

[steviem]

Firewire is the only real way of using the Migration Utility. You can't connect two USB hosts together as one or both of their buses will get overloaded.

I don't think Apple loves Firewire anymore - well for Consumer devices, anyway. Syncing music onto my old 3G was nice and quick. onto my 5G now (restricted to USB only) its a much slower process. Why couldn't they keep the firewire connectivity?

Firewire will stay on macs for as long as Digital Camcorders stay around.

[Eraserhead]

Syncing music onto my old 3G was nice and quick. onto my 5G now (restricted to USB only) its a much slower process. Why couldn't they keep the firewire connectivity?

Because Firewire needs its own hardware controller which takes up space ;).

[garybUK]

Also not every PC (most new ones do now) have Firewire, for iPod to become truely successful as it has was to move it to USB which almost every windows box has.

I've known a few cheap Firewire controllers to kill FW Ipods.

[steviem]

But my 3G used to be able to do FW and USB and wasnt that much bigger than my 5G is. Its just annoying, My iBook only has 2 USB ports as it is.. and one Firewire port that only gets connected up for importing DV.

[Steve Jobs=God]

Was reading one of my regular Mac magzines recently and there was a article stating that Apple is seriously considering discontinuing Firewire, can't remember the reasons, but i hope they don't i love firewire!

[DoFoT9]

Was reading one of my regular Mac magzines recently and there was a article stating that Apple is seriously considering discontinuing Firewire, can't remember the reasons, but i hope they don't i love firewire!

firewire is the BOMB!! i dont personally think they will loose it. because they practically invented it (somewhat)
one of the main reasons pc's dont use firewire, or because its costly is because companies have to pay a small proportion to apple as they have wateva the copyright law is on it, apparently.

[MisterMe]

... because they practically invented it (somewhat)
...There is no "somewhat." Apple invented FireWire as a replacement for SCSI. It submitted the technology for IEEE standardization. FireWire became a published standard as IEEE 1394. Sony released an implementation under the trademark iLink. Apple submitted its trademark FireWire to the IEEE as the official nickname for IEEE 1394. It was accepted. Apple even modified its FireWire icon and submitted it to IEEE as the official FireWire icon. Long story short, there is little in FireWire that did not come from Apple.

[TBi]

firewire is the BOMB!! i dont personally think they will loose it. because they practically invented it (somewhat)
one of the main reasons pc's dont use firewire, or because its costly is because companies have to pay a small proportion to apple as they have wateva the copyright law is on it, apparently.

If it's an IEEE standard then apple can't charge anything for it unless they use the FireWire name. This is why pc manufacturers call them IEEE-1394 ports.

The reason they cost more is because they need a dedicated host chip. This dedicated chip helps firewire be faster than USB 2.0.

[sammich]

I think I read somewhere that USB2 runs on a 1mhz bus while FW1/2 runs on a 8mhz bus. Therefore, firewire is faster (and better:cool:)
PCI-E runs on a 60mhz+ bus or something, but it's in a different league.

I don't have a source for this.

[DoFoT9]

There is no "somewhat." Apple invented FireWire as a replacement for SCSI. It submitted the technology for IEEE standardization. FireWire became a published standard as IEEE 1394. Sony released an implementation under the trademark iLink. Apple submitted its trademark FireWire to the IEEE as the official nickname for IEEE 1394. It was accepted. Apple even modified its FireWire icon and submitted it to IEEE as the official FireWire icon. Long story short, there is little in FireWire that did not come from Apple.

If it's an IEEE standard then apple can't charge anything for it unless they use the FireWire name. This is why pc manufacturers call them IEEE-1394 ports.

The reason they cost more is because they need a dedicated host chip. This dedicated chip helps firewire be faster than USB 2.0.

oh so apple completely developed IEEE 1394. thats something i didnt know. thanks for that informations guys.:) its good to have incredibly smart and knowledgable people to teach the retards

[bimmzy]

Let's not forget that Apple invented Firewire so they're bound to plug it (poor pun :o)

Yes, in collaboration with Sony. And piles of their kit has the I. Link
IEEE 1394 connector. :D

[Rodimus Prime]

Low and behold it was adopted by all Windows boxes over Firewire and thus, took the market by storm.



That is not why firewire never took off like USB did. Firewire is a much more limited use than USB 2.0. On top of that the areas where firewire is a better choice to go with are few and far between. For most things USB is a much better choice to go with.

Most things we use on our computer the best choice to go with has always been USB. Lets see keyboard and mouse are best when put with USB. Also you have flash drives which the USB port is smaller than a firewire so means the flash drives are smaller.

Plus firewire is faster only in sustain data transfers so for most things the burst speed of USB 2.0 is faster.

That is the reason Firewire never took off like USB. It is to limited in it application on when it is useful. I willing to be good money most mac users never have even used their firewire port on their computer. The only time the average person really would use firewire for would be an external hard drive.
Heck the only reason I plug my ipod into the firewire port is because it is not used for anything else and I am near max out on my USB ports.

[TBi]

That is not why firewire never took off like USB did. Firewire is a much more limited use than USB 2.0. On top of that the areas where firewire is a better choice to go with are few and far between. For most things USB is a much better choice to go with.

Most things we use on our computer the best choice to go with has always been USB. Lets see keyboard and mouse are best when put with USB. Also you have flash drives which the USB port is smaller than a firewire so means the flash drives are smaller.

Plus firewire is faster only in sustain data transfers so for most things the burst speed of USB 2.0 is faster.

That is the reason Firewire never took off like USB. It is to limited in it application on when it is useful. I willing to be good money most mac users never have even used their firewire port on their computer. The only time the average person really would use firewire for would be an external hard drive.
Heck the only reason I plug my ipod into the firewire port is because it is not used for anything else and I am near max out on my USB ports.

Is there any proof that firewire could not handle a keyboard or mouse?

USB had keyboards and mice because they didn't need the bandwidth that firewire had. This higher bandwidth was better saved for hard drives and cameras. It also cheaper to put USB on board than firewire. However none of this actually shows that firewire can't do the same as USB.

[Rodimus Prime]

Is there any proof that firewire could not handle a keyboard or mouse?

USB had keyboards and mice because they didn't need the bandwidth that firewire had. This higher bandwidth was better saved for hard drives and cameras. It also cheaper to put USB on board than firewire. However none of this actually shows that firewire can't do the same as USB.

I never said it couldn't. What I stated was USB is better for keyboard and mouse. Apple has never made a firewire keyboard or mouse.
It a matter cost. USB has always been cheaper and easier to make.

Minus the sustain data transfer rate and the fact a little more power can be put though a firewire cable. Every where it takes a back seat to USB 2.0. That is the reason firewire never took off. It applications are just to limited on where it is a better choice.
USB has always been smaller and cheaper than firewire.
Yes USB 2.0 is over kill for a keyboard and mouse but the cost difference between a 2.0 port and a 1.1 port is very little any any at all. For almost everyone out their USB is better choice

[flopticalcube]

I never said it couldn't. What I stated was USB is better for keyboard and mouse. Apple has never made a firewire keyboard or mouse.
It a matter cost. USB has always been cheaper and easier to make.

Minus the sustain data transfer rate and the fact a little more power can be put though a firewire cable. Every where it takes a back seat to USB 2.0. That is the reason firewire never took off. It applications are just to limited on where it is a better choice.
USB has always been smaller and cheaper than firewire.
Yes USB 2.0 is over kill for a keyboard and mouse but the cost difference between a 2.0 port and a 1.1 port is very little any any at all. For almost everyone out their USB is better choice

All completely correct. Hence the U in USB. Firewire is a much smaller niche than USB (which is kind of like the old ADB). However, given the choice, I would much rather have FW800 or even FW400 for my HD camera and hard drive than USB2.0.

[Wyvernspirit]

I never said it couldn't. What I stated was USB is better for keyboard and mouse. Apple has never made a firewire keyboard or mouse.
It a matter cost. USB has always been cheaper and easier to make.

Minus the sustain data transfer rate and the fact a little more power can be put though a firewire cable. Every where it takes a back seat to USB 2.0. That is the reason firewire never took off. ....more stuff....

Actually, Firewire is better in just about every way then USB except for one, which you mentioned, COST. It is cheaper to add USB to a device, and when it and firewire were first being introduced it was an even greater difference.

Also at their introduction, you had Intel pushing USB (obvious reasons) and getting it added to PCs even when they weren't being used, and in some cases couldn't be used.

Now USB is so dominate it doesn't really matter, but firewire could do just about everything that USB can but at a greater cost. I'd like to hear what USB can do that Firewire can't.

Anyways, I was (and sort of still) using a 3G iPod [15GB] with Firewire on my computer. I also Have a Firewire hard drive so both my ports were filled. I am a little sad because my iPhone [8GB] uses USB 2.0 (which I actually added to my comp) which transfers slower. The only good thing is it has less capacity [by about half] so I don't notice as much. I wish it could use firewire.

[FoxyKaye]

I think of this entire discussion every time I restore my video iPod - I work with video all day on the job and move massive files around. When I first synced my iPod with my iMac at home, I kept thinking, "why the heck is this taking so long, it's 60GB for gods sake." And then it hit me - our drives at work are on FW800 and my video iPod is coping with USB2. I know Apple made this switch for marketing, size, cost or whatever else came in to the decision making process at the time, but I still miss it, and I can't help but wonder how much time syncing and restoring a 120GB iPod will take.

[-::ubermann::-]

a third usb port rather than the firewire in my macbook would be more useful :)

[Naimfan]

Well, I just bought two different hard drives--one, a Seagate 500 Gb that OfficeMax had on sale for $119, and a Western Digital MyBook Premium, also 500 Gb. The Seagate was USB only, the WD has Firewire.

The firewire connection was MUCH faster in backing up--it took about a quarter of the time. Plus, on my iMac, it uses one of the FW ports that would otherwise go unused, and leaves free one of the few USB ports for other things.

So I'd say FW is a great thing to have and use.

Bob

[KD7IWP]

My iBook and MBP both have Firewire and transfer at the same speeds. But when I use USB, the iBook has much slower transfer rates since USB is CPU dependent.

[cube]

If Apple loved FireWire and cared more about their installed base than about Windows people the iPods wouldn't be USB.

[Wyvernspirit]

If Apple loved FireWire and cared more about their installed base than about Windows people the iPods wouldn't be USB.

They used to be Firewire, and they loaded up faster back then. Still use a 15GB 3rd Gen iPod and an 8GB iPhone, and judging only music upload, the 15GB gets done faster the 8GB. Too Bad. Would have liked a Firewire iPhone.

[CalBoy]

They used to be Firewire, and they loaded up faster back then. Still use a 15GB 3rd Gen iPod and an 8GB iPhone, and judging only music upload, the 15GB gets done faster the 8GB. Too Bad. Would have liked a Firewire iPhone.

I'm guessing the Firewire cables Apple used to give us with the iPods doesn't work if you want to sync right? It does charge it though right? *Sigh* there's not much of an advantage there.

[thefnshow]

if firewire is so great , shouldn't apple then sell firewire thumb drives ?

[CalBoy]

if firewire is so great , shouldn't apple then sell firewire thumb drives ?

:confused::confused::confused: As far as I know, Apple doesn't sell thumb drives period. Why would they jump into this industry now?

And FYI, Firewire is much faster than USB. My old 4th Gen iPod has proved that time and time again.

[aquajet]

Plus firewire is faster only in sustain data transfers so for most things the burst speed of USB 2.0 is faster.

This has been hashed out many times -- the theoretical maximum of USB 2 is slightly faster but in the real world, time and again Firewire has proven itself to be faster by a significant margin.

Heck the only reason I plug my ipod into the firewire port is because it is not used for anything else and I am near max out on my USB ports.

You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that an iPod connected via Firewire will sync faster than through a USB 2 connection? :rolleyes: ;)

if firewire is so great , shouldn't apple then sell firewire thumb drives ?

As mentioned already, it all comes down to cost.

[Counterfit]

Actually, Firewire is better in just about every way then USB except for one, which you mentioned, COST.

And size and complexity of the internal parts. FW requires an on-board controller. That's handy for drives and cameras (what's the max number of daisy-chained devices? 67?), not so much for small portable things.

Also, FW flash drives do exist (http://www.kanguru.com/fireflash.html).

[Naimfan]

And size and complexity of the internal parts. FW requires an on-board controller. That's handy for drives and cameras (what's the max number of daisy-chained devices? 67?), not so much for small portable things.

Also, FW flash drives do exist (http://www.kanguru.com/fireflash.html).

Isn't that rather assumed in cost?

Cool to know about FW flash drives!

B

[LethalWolfe]

I think of this entire discussion every time I restore my video iPod - I work with video all day on the job and move massive files around. When I first synced my iPod with my iMac at home, I kept thinking, "why the heck is this taking so long, it's 60GB for gods sake." And then it hit me - our drives at work are on FW800 and my video iPod is coping with USB2. I know Apple made this switch for marketing, size, cost or whatever else came in to the decision making process at the time, but I still miss it, and I can't help but wonder how much time syncing and restoring a 120GB iPod will take.
The difference in HDD speed between your work drives and your iPod come into play as well in regards to transfer speeds.


Lethal

[weckart]

Firewire is overkill for all apart from sustained high bandwidth use, such as external hard drives or video transfers and even this is under threat from eSATA - especially on the PC side.

Case in point - webcams. Apple offered one of the very few FW webcams on the market. No longer. It even replaced the internal webcams on its laptops with usb models, with no discernable loss in resolution or performance.

The price of those FW thumbdrives is eyewatering. Techtool also offered a FW thumbdrive with its Protege package. Also not cheap.

[novex1984]

hi i personally prefer firewire than usb2.0. if don mind spend a little time to read this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire

everyone on high speed internet use firewire technology ...FireWire S800T (IEEE 1394c) jusr read and understand more...for those think usb is better than firewire...we are not talking for one point(speed) but multi point thanks..

[bigandy]

just a point on the original post - what's the point on using USB2 instead of FW when to transfer stuff via migration assistant? i mean, it's mac to mac anyway, and almost every mac in the last nine years has had firewire built in...

(and in the case of cables, you can get USB A to A cables, so that's a non issue).

:confused:

[Wyvernspirit]

just a point on the original post - what's the point on using USB2 instead of FW when to transfer stuff via migration assistant? i mean, it's mac to mac anyway, and almost every mac in the last nine years has had firewire built in...

(and in the case of cables, you can get USB A to A cables, so that's a non issue).

:confused:

Cost, pure and simple. USB cables are cheater then firewire, at least in my experience.

[bigandy]

Cost, pure and simple. USB cables are cheater then firewire, at least in my experience.

hardly. i can pick up a FW800-FW800 cable for less than i can pick up a USB A-A cable (which would be required in this situation).

[dpaanlka]

Q: Why does Apple love firewire so much?

A: Apple largely developed what we now call FireWire themselves. It has been built-into most Macs made in the last ten years. It is hardware controlled rather than software controlled, making it less of a hassle to do fun things with. It's faster, even FW400 is faster with large complex stuff (USB 2.0 only "bursts" ahead for a few moments then poops out). It also works as far back as System 7.5.x.

FireWire pwns USB.

[DoFoT9]

Cost, pure and simple. USB cables are cheaper then firewire, at least in my experience.
its not all that much more expensive than FW. and besides, i would be willing to pay and extra, what $10-$20?? FW is a lot better and more reliable, aslong as it works better than USB ill get it. thus why i choose osx over M$ :p

Q: Why does Apple love firewire so much?

A: Apple largely developed what we now call FireWire themselves. It has been built-into most Macs made in the last ten years. It is hardware controlled rather than software controlled, making it less of a hassle to do fun things with. It's faster, even FW400 is faster with large complex stuff (USB 2.0 only "bursts" ahead for a few moments then poops out). It also works as far back as System 7.5.x.

FireWire pwns USB.

so true. FW owns! i would choose it anyday. actually someone suggested FW flashdrives, thats an incredible idea!!!!

[ivnj]

That's an excellent point I hadn't even considered. To support USB Target disk mode Apple would have to add a Type B USB connection on the Mac and it would only be used for that one purpose. Something that happens maybe only once in the life of the computer. Can't believe I missed that.

Not true. They make usb A to A cables. So there would be no need to add a b port to macs.

ivnj

[takao]

well for firewire slowly dying: i don't know hasn't intel just recently released draft specifications for "Wireless USB" and "USB 3.0" ?
i recall their goal of USB 3.0 was in the range of 4-5 Gbps (that's more than eSATA) and that want mainstream devices to appear in 2009-2010 ... and it's again going to be completely backwards compatible

(the goal for wireless USB is going to be 1 Gbps ... jikes)

[CashGap]

If Apple loved FireWire and cared more about their installed base than about Windows people the iPods wouldn't be USB.

Yeah, but that move "made" the iPod and ITMS, and without it, we'd have had about 1/4 as many switchers, which means new machines would be less frequent and more costly...

50% of Mac purchasers are buying their first Mac. Wow!

A good trade.

[iPhil]

It's faster, even FW400 is faster with large complex stuff (USB 2.0 only "bursts" ahead for a few moments then poops out).


The Usb 2.0 standard is only capable of handling 30 to 35 Mbps for short bursts.. FW400 will handle 35 to 40 MBps longer periods because one is the power that flows thru the cable.. FW800 is 45 to 90 MBps but pop up to 100 MBps when it needs to on fly ..



its not all that much more expensive than FW. and besides, i would be willing to pay and extra, what $10-$20?? FW is a lot better and more reliable, aslong as it works better than USB ill get it. thus why i choose osx over M$ :p


so true. FW owns! i would choose it anyday. actually someone suggested FW flashdrives, thats an incredible idea!!!!



I was thinking of a FW card reader that's a size of thumb drive but it would use and current High capacity digital media cards, e.g. SDHC media cards.. :eek:

[daveperk]

Because it works. Because it existed before USB 2. Because it is a standard in the Digital Video field.



Wrong. USB 2.0 is faster on paper (480 vs 400 MBs) but Firewire is almost twice as fast in real-world, Finder file transfer tests (Yes, I benchmarked it myself).

I'll drink to that.

I have drives on firewire and on USB, and when I try to work with HD video, the firewire one is fast enough and the USB one definitely is NOT.

Specs be damned, that firewire is better for big steady continuous transfers.

[7on]

Now that this has been bummed to the new year...

Macbook Air


No firewire.

[CalBoy]

Macbook Air


No firewire.

Which bums me out. :(

But I do understand why it was done.

[ccwilli3]

firewire has an overall much lower CPU utilization for doing the same functions as it's USB 2.0 competitor...

[DoFoT9]

im looking foreward to seeing how the new USB3.0 (5gbps) compares to FW800 and FW3000.

[maxrobertson]

Was reading one of my regular Mac magzines recently and there was a article stating that Apple is seriously considering discontinuing Firewire, can't remember the reasons, but i hope they don't i love firewire!

Don't worry, they won't. People still need a way to use iMovie, right :). That's the only thing I've ever used it for, and I would be pissed if I couldn't use it anymore.

[DoFoT9]

Don't worry, they won't. People still need a way to use iMovie, right :). That's the only thing I've ever used it for, and I would be pissed if I couldn't use it anymore.

yup yup yup yup 2nd that mate.

[imbored]

Hopefully we'll be seeing USB 3.0 within another year or so, I'm looking forward to that.

[DoFoT9]

Hopefully we'll be seeing USB 3.0 within another year or so, I'm looking forward to that.

how much do u reckon itl cost extra?? or will it cost about the same?

will it need a new interface, or a simple firmware upgrade?

[daveperk]

I took a big video file and put it on my FW400 and my USB drive, and then copied it back to the internal HD from each and timed it.

THe FW400 was almost three times as fast as the USB2.

Not sure why, but FW400 is way better in real world data moving than USB2 is, even though the specs might say otherwise.

Burst rate, top speed rate, really means little in everyday use. You hardly ever get that speed, and you never keep it. the more important number is the steady state rate, and clearly the USB2 480 can't keep up with the FW 400.

[zap2]

FW is much better then USB, like SO much better. Really missed FireWire 400 when I synced my 160Gb iPod up. ANd for iMovie or big back ups to external HDs

[DoFoT9]

I took a big video file and put it on my FW400 and my USB drive, and then copied it back to the internal HD from each and timed it.

THe FW400 was almost three times as fast as the USB2.

Not sure why, but FW400 is way better in real world data moving than USB2 is, even though the specs might say otherwise.

Burst rate, top speed rate, really means little in everyday use. You hardly ever get that speed, and you never keep it. the more important number is the steady state rate, and clearly the USB2 480 can't keep up with the FW 400.

FW400 is faster than USB2.0 mainly because USB2.0 needs a response from the computer/device that you are sending information to, and firewire doesnot.

if your transferring the same amount of data, USB2.0 while transfering one package, will need a response from the device to say that it has been successfully transmitted.

firewire does not need this response and has an upper hand in transferring data because it does not have to wait for that response..

thats my understanding of it anyway..