PDA

View Full Version : FireWire to Reach 3.2 Gigabit/s Speeds




MacRumors
Dec 17, 2007, 08:34 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The 1394 Trade Association announced (http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2007Press/december/12.12.a.htm) a new S3200 specification that will deliver speeds up to 3.2 gigabits per second over FireWire. This represents a four-fold improvement over the existing FireWire 800 specification found in current Macs.

The new specification builds on the existing 1394b standard by using the same cables and connectors that are already deployed in existing FireWire 800 products. S3200 is expected to be ratified by early February.
"The S3200 standard will sustain the position of IEEE 1394 as the absolute performance leader in multi-purpose I/O ports for consumer applications in computer and CE devices," said James Snider, executive director, 1394 Trade Association. "There is a very clear migration path from 800 Megabits/second to 3.2 Gigabits/second, with no need for modifications to the standard and no requirement for new cables or connectors."
The increased bandwidth would permit S3200 to transmit uncompressed high definition signals over long distances at a lower cost than HDMI.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/17/firewire-to-reach-3-2-gigabit-s-speeds/)



macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 08:36 AM
Nice to see FW catching up with SATA. Great that it sounds like it is backwards compatible with existing FW800 devices. Nice one!

Eidorian
Dec 17, 2007, 08:36 AM
Now to wait for a Mac with faster FireWire. :rolleyes:

arn
Dec 17, 2007, 08:38 AM
ya, so while the connectors and cables are the same, you're going to need new Macs hardware to drive the FW3200 (?) devices.

arn

Eidorian
Dec 17, 2007, 08:39 AM
ya, so while the connectors and cables are the same, you're going to need new Macs hardware to drive the FW3200 (?) devices.

arnYeah, sounds like USB 2.0.

twoodcc
Dec 17, 2007, 08:42 AM
Yeah, sounds like USB 2.0.

yeah it does a little, except a whole lot faster :p

diamond.g
Dec 17, 2007, 08:43 AM
This would have been a much bigger deal two or three years ago (the HDMI vs Firewire part), now it just seems like a little too late.

All that is needed is to get Intel on board with using this new FW speed in their mainboards. It would get adopted a whole lot faster that way.

Abstract
Dec 17, 2007, 08:47 AM
If the cables are the same, and the data being sent isn't compressed in any way, then how did they get it to be 4x better? Did they just improve the controller or something?

CaptainHaddock
Dec 17, 2007, 08:54 AM
I really hope Apple puts this in all their new Macs and pushes the technology in a big way. FireWire is vastly superior to USB for data-intense devices, and it's time Apple started pushing superior technologies again like they used to.

Squonk
Dec 17, 2007, 08:56 AM
I'd like to see this on all new mac's in 2008 and iPods as they get newer models. This would make it quite snappy to load up a 160GB Classic!

I know, this technology is really aimed at the high end professional video needs....

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 08:57 AM
I really hope Apple puts this in all their new Macs and pushes the technology in a big way. FireWire is vastly superior to USB for data-intense devices, and it's time Apple started pushing superior technologies again like they used to.

More to the point. How long before we see the QUINT from Lacie?

Lovesong
Dec 17, 2007, 08:59 AM
If the cables are the same, and the data being sent isn't compressed in any way, then how did they get it to be 4x better? Did they just improve the controller or something?

Well, yeah- if you think about it, the speed of something (be it data, electricity, or whatever) going through a cable is determined by cable size and the frequency of the signal (this is an oversimplification). You up the frequency, and you have more stuff coming down the pipes.

cworsley4
Dec 17, 2007, 09:00 AM
Will this be a firmware update since it used the same ports and connectors that we currently have.:apple:

irishgrizzly
Dec 17, 2007, 09:01 AM
Could this be in the next Mac Pro? or would it need more time for development/testing?


---edit---

Sorry, didn't fully understand the news – so old machines could transmit at faster speeds with OS patch?

twoodcc
Dec 17, 2007, 09:03 AM
Could this be in the next Mac Pro? or would it need more time for development/testing?

well that would be nice, but i doubt it

xUKHCx
Dec 17, 2007, 09:03 AM
Could this be in the next Mac Pro? or would it need more time for development/testing?

Seeing as this has been ratified which is a long process I am sure all major companies who actually want to use it will have had their hands on it for a long time for testing procedures.

Still unclear, to me anyway, if it needs a new computer to support it or if it will come via a software update.

cohibadad
Dec 17, 2007, 09:04 AM
FW800/3200 ipod connection would be nice

thecritix
Dec 17, 2007, 09:04 AM
ya, so while the connectors and cables are the same, you're going to need new Macs hardware to drive the FW3200 (?) devices.

arn

well.. what would you rather? they totally changed the connections, at least by running it this way you can upgrade and have the speed or not upgrade and still have the peripherals.

SPUY767
Dec 17, 2007, 09:05 AM
yeah it does a little, except a whole lot faster :p

yeah, I've always found USB's theoritical limits to be exactly that, purely theoretical. I've been about to get over 80MB/sec out of a firewire 800 drive whose theoretical maximum would be 100MB/sec. USB 2.0 whose limit is allegedly 50MB/sec I can barely squeeze 20 MB/sec out of.

eji
Dec 17, 2007, 09:06 AM
Glad to see FW keeping pace with USB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_3.0) to some extent.

Doesn't look like FW3200 will match USB3's 4.8Gbps, but then, I've always found USB's speeds to be great in theory but lackluster in practice. For large transfers (100GB+), I've found USB2's speeds to be pretty underwhelming in comparison to "old" FW400.

I'm also still plodding along just fine with FW400 (no Intel Mac yet), so any positive FW news is just a novelty for me. By the time FW3200 appears, I'll probably only just have bought my first FW800-capable machine.

Dagless
Dec 17, 2007, 09:06 AM
A total pipedream but I'd love this on a 160gb iPod. My 80gb takes an age to fill up over a USB2 connection.

Come back Firewire. Come back to the 'pods.

daddywags214
Dec 17, 2007, 09:06 AM
This is great. HDMI is great for home theater stuff now, but FW3200 would be a vastly superior connection format because it is not limited to TVs and receivers, etc. It could serve as a connection for the new breed of uncompressed HD cameras (RED ONE, anyone?), ultrafast external (and mobile) RAIDs, and a bunch of other stuff. All while still being compatible with our little normal externals and cameras. Thumbs up.

Bill Gates
Dec 17, 2007, 09:06 AM
FW800/3200 ipod connection would be nice
But what about all the Windows users with nary a Firewire port? For that reason I doubt Apple will ever use Firewire with an iPod again.

markfc
Dec 17, 2007, 09:07 AM
FW800/3200 ipod connection would be nice



Would it be any faster though? I thought the bottle neck was getting the data on to the disk as it's only 4200rpm.

JFreak
Dec 17, 2007, 09:09 AM
Sounds great! I guess they made some right decisions in FW800 development, now they can just raise the clock speed and get more juice with same cables.

acearchie
Dec 17, 2007, 09:09 AM
Ok so apple firewire is the new HDMI

Well Ill go and re-buy my whole system! Ha

Something seems a little fishy to me, no need to buy new hardware or cables

So why didn't they implement this when they first released Firewire...

SciTeach
Dec 17, 2007, 09:09 AM
Well, if anything comes from this, at least backing up will be faster...

Strange about how the speed increases but everything (well almost everything) is the same...:confused:

xUKHCx
Dec 17, 2007, 09:10 AM
Glad to see FW keeping pace with USB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_3.0) to some extent.

Doesn't look like FW3200 will match USB3's 4.8Gbps, but then, I've always found USB's speeds to be great in theory but lackluster in practice. For large transfers (100GB+), I've found USB2's speeds to be pretty underwhelming in comparison to "old" FW400.

I'm also still plodding along just fine with FW400 (no Intel Mac yet), so any positive FW news is just a novelty for me. By the time FW3200 appears, I'll probably only just have bought my first FW800-capable machine.

USB 3 needs new cables as it adds an optical line.

iJawn108
Dec 17, 2007, 09:11 AM
geeze... firewire 3500... usb 3... 80 cores by 2010 from intel...


so much new fun stuff is coming

SPUY767
Dec 17, 2007, 09:13 AM
yeah it does a little, except a whole lot faster :p

yeah, I've always found USB's theoritical limits to be exactly that, purely theoretical. I've been about to get over 80MB/sec out of a firewire 800 drive whose theoretical maximum would be 100MB/sec. USB 2.0 whose limit is allegedly 50MB/sec I can barely squeeze 20 MB/sec out of.

FW800/3200 ipod connection would be nice

Would be a little superfluous, the bottleneck is typically on the iPod side with its drive controller from what I can tell.

thecritix
Dec 17, 2007, 09:18 AM
But what about all the Windows users with nary a Firewire port? For that reason I doubt Apple will ever use Firewire with an iPod again.

Why not continue to sell ipod with USB but also sell the firewire cable seperately, that way apple can make money on an overpriced Firewire cable, we can have our quick transfer speeds and... be able to gloat over PC at how far superior our macs are.

everyones a winner

jodycordan
Dec 17, 2007, 09:20 AM
Pointless if your hard drive is the bottleneck

The very most you can get out of a hard drive (if your lucky) is 80 megabytes a second. I'll start getting excited when a hard drive can keep up with the interface it runs on.

macFanDave
Dec 17, 2007, 09:23 AM
FireWire 400 or 800?

I think that the biggest problem with the adoption of FW800 was the fact that it had a different connector than 400. This was stupid because many years ago, I saw the road map of FireWire going from 400 to 800 to 1600 and to 3200. They should have standardized on the connector that could handle 3200 and then used that on all of the previous generations, even if it meant leaving some pins blank.

FW400 is vastly better that USB 2.0 even with its putative 480 mbps speed.

I hope FW 3200 can do well. As far as saying that the "data transfer standard war " is over and that USB won, keep in mind that you are dealing with a company that never throws in the towel. In any company can take an early technical leader that was overtaken by a popular inferior technology and make it relevant again, it is Apple. Let's get 'er done this time, guys!

abrooks
Dec 17, 2007, 09:24 AM
Why not continue to sell ipod with USB but also sell the firewire cable seperately, that way apple can make money on an overpriced Firewire cable, we can have our quick transfer speeds and... be able to gloat over PC at how far superior our macs are.

everyones a winner

There isn't enough space in current generation iPods for a Firewire controller, it would also increase the price of the units. Just look at the thickness and cost of the third-generation iPod.

Firewire is dead in the water for iPods.

notjustjay
Dec 17, 2007, 09:24 AM
Something seems a little fishy to me, no need to buy new hardware or cables

So why didn't they implement this when they first released Firewire...

It sounded to me like you need to buy new hardware, e.g. the controllers in your logic board and whatever devices take advantage of the new speed. The cables stay the same because the cable isn't the weakest link in the chain, much like a USB cable could be either 1.1 or 2.0 depending on the speed of the controller. Or how a CAT5 cable initially supported 10 mbps, then 100 mbps, now Gigabit ethernet. Nothing suspicious about finding faster ways to make things happen on the same cable.

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 09:25 AM
Why not continue to sell ipod with USB but also sell the firewire cable seperately, that way apple can make money on an overpriced Firewire cable, we can have our quick transfer speeds and... be able to gloat over PC at how far superior our macs are.

everyones a winner


I want an iPod with SCSI on it. That would be great!

MrCrowbar
Dec 17, 2007, 09:27 AM
Would it be any faster though? I thought the bottle neck was getting the data on to the disk as it's only 4200rpm.

Indeed. USB2 is plenty fast for one 7200 rpm drive. Those 1.8" drives are pretty bad performance wise. But it's good enough for audio and stamp sized video. Plus you got those seek times, basically for every track that has to be synced.

Firewire would make some sense for the flash based iPods. Although having a consumer device (iPod) connect faster to a Professional device (Mac Pro and Macbook Pro, both of which have FW800) isn't really profitable.

It's far more probable Apple upgrade the iPods and Macs to USB 3.0. It's backwards compatible down to USB 1.1 and Windows PCs are more likely to have it. Also, Firewire is for realtime data. You don't need realtime iPod syncing, do you? ;)

That new Firewire would indeed be great for Professionals doing Audio and Video. It might not be quick enough to get RAW video from the RED camera to a RAID, besides, you can buy a special RAID just for that camera. High Definition can be a bitch indeed. We only have it occasionally in Germany, and it's all 1080i, i.e. unwatchable (interlaced) on any affordable LCD TV. Why there is an interlaced high definition digital broadcasting standard is beyond me, all the production is done in progressive, LCDs only works in Progressive mode... Where can I get 720p on demand movies and series in Germany?

kerpow
Dec 17, 2007, 09:28 AM
Pointless if your hard drive is the bottleneck

The very most you can get out of a hard drive (if your lucky) is 80 megabytes a second. I'll start getting excited when a hard drive can keep up with the interface it runs on.

SAS 300?

emotion
Dec 17, 2007, 09:31 AM
USB 3.0 is the thing to watch as the competitor. Whilst USB isn't quite as quick as Firewire (esp. on sustained transfers) it is a little more convenient (less chance of blowing the ports on USB while system is up).

Good article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-battle-of-the-next-gen-firewire-s3200-vs-usb-3.html

bigandy
Dec 17, 2007, 09:32 AM
yeah, I've always found USB's theoritical limits to be exactly that, purely theoretical. I've been about to get over 80MB/sec out of a firewire 800 drive whose theoretical maximum would be 100MB/sec. USB 2.0 whose limit is allegedly 50MB/sec I can barely squeeze 20 MB/sec out of.

1. USB2 runs quicker on Windows. Quite a bit quicker. Still no contest with FW though.

2. FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer.

3. Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control).



I'm glad Firewire is being updated again - I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw the next step. It's great that 1600 is being missed and we're jumping straight to 3200. :)



Will this be a firmware update since it used the same ports and connectors that we currently have.

doubtful, because there'll be some architecture upgrades to make use of the quadrupling of the speed.

Claytoniss
Dec 17, 2007, 09:35 AM
USB always have seemed cheap to me, like the hardwared will break or bend easy. Firewire 4 eva! :o!

daddywags214
Dec 17, 2007, 09:37 AM
1. USB2 runs quicker on Windows. Quite a bit quicker. Still no contest with FW though.

2. FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer.

3. Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control).



I'm glad Firewire is being updated again - I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw the next step. It's great that 1600 is being missed and we're jumping straight to 3200. :)





doubtful, because there'll be some architecture upgrades to make use of the quadrupling of the speed.


I know about FW's peer-to-peer architecture, but I didn't know that USB2 was faster on Windows. Do you know why it is? I haven't fired up my PC in awhile; now I'm interested in a little side-by-side test.

QuantumLo0p
Dec 17, 2007, 09:43 AM
I wonder if the new FW spec will have the same advantages over USB3 that FW400/800 has over USB2? USB2 does not have much bus power and real world sustained throughput is slower than FW in most cases.

I have to admit it would be nice to have FW in smaller devices, including the iPod, but the extra hardware and cost is a factor.:o

bigandy
Dec 17, 2007, 09:47 AM
I know about FW's peer-to-peer architecture, but I didn't know that USB2 was faster on Windows. Do you know why it is? I haven't fired up my PC in awhile; now I'm interested in a little side-by-side test.

I think it's because of the drivers, they're just better on Windies.


I wonder if the new FW spec will have the same advantages over USB3 that FW400/800 has over USB2? USB2 does not have much bus power and real world sustained throughput is slower than FW in most cases.

I have to admit it would be nice to have FW in smaller devices, including the iPod, but the extra hardware and cost is a factor.:o


It likely will. USB3 will be backward compatible, so will keep the same architecture. I expect FW3200 to outperform USB3 without problem.

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 09:49 AM
1. USB2 runs quicker on Windows. Quite a bit quicker. Still no contest with FW though.

Why is that the case. And I don't mean why as in "isn't everything supposed to be better on a mac".... But, if USB 2.0 is a standard architecture, surely only OS driver is different? Is Apple's USB software really that bad? I can't say that I've noticed much difference when I use USB 2.0 dirves to transfer files between a PC and a Mac, then again I'm probably hitting the limit of the physical disc and not reaching that o the interface so might not have noticed.can you elaboarate on te resns you think t would be slwoer on a Mac - assuming the Minitruth lets you post such heresy :D

bigandy
Dec 17, 2007, 09:50 AM
Why is that the case. And I don't mean why as in "isn't everything supposed to be better on a mac".... But, if USB 2.0 is a standard architecture, surely only OS driver is different? Is Apple's USB software really that bad? I can't say that I've noticed much difference when I use USB 2.0 dirves to transfer files between a PC and a Mac, then again I'm probably hitting the limit of the physical disc and not reaching that o the interface so might not have noticed.can you elaboarate on te resns you think t would be slwoer on a Mac - assuming the Minitruth lets you post such heresy :D

I'll try and root out the article. I have a feeling it was arstechnica that said it first.

hayesk
Dec 17, 2007, 09:57 AM
I'll try and root out the article. I have a feeling it was arstechnica that said it first.

I don't think that is true anymore. Maybe when the standard first came out, but not anymore.

MovieCutter
Dec 17, 2007, 09:58 AM
As has already been stated, like any of this matters. The disks that we jack into these FW3200 enclosures are crap anyway, so you won't get any faster transfer rates unless you have flash drives or a killer RAID setup. Move along.

jbh001
Dec 17, 2007, 09:58 AM
So what ever happened to 1394c (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/) also known as S800T?

I thought that S3200 was already part of 1394b (http://www.teener.com/firewire_FAQ/firewire_FAQ.html#S100_S200_a_nameS400aS400_a_nam).
Does this revision update the spec from 1394b-2002 to 1394b-2008?

Then again, since Apple has made nice with Intel, maybe Intel has forgiven Apple over it's Firewire snootiness (http://www.teener.com/firewire_FAQ/firewire_FAQ.html#A_short_history_of_licensing), and S3200 will be integrated into Intel's chipsets. Dare I dream that S3200 support will be built-in to the Santa Rosa refresh Intel has announced for January?

daddywags214
Dec 17, 2007, 10:02 AM
As has already been stated, like any of this matters. The disks that we jack into these FW3200 enclosures are crap anyway, so you won't get any faster transfer rates unless you have flash drives or a killer RAID setup. Move along.

Think, then, of how great a FW3200 flash RAID would be!

whatever
Dec 17, 2007, 10:08 AM
This would have been a much bigger deal two or three years ago (the HDMI vs Firewire part), now it just seems like a little too late.

All that is needed is to get Intel on board with using this new FW speed in their mainboards. It would get adopted a whole lot faster that way.

It's never to late to do a way with HDMI. Having used it, it's complete mess.

The key would be of course will be intelligent switching on the devices that use the new Firewire. Allowing any port to be in or out.

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 10:09 AM
Think, then, of how great a FW3200 flash RAID would be!

It would be cheaper to employ an army of people to remember stuff!

whatever
Dec 17, 2007, 10:11 AM
There isn't enough space in current generation iPods for a Firewire controller, it would also increase the price of the units. Just look at the thickness and cost of the third-generation iPod.

Firewire is dead in the water for iPods.

What are you talking about. The last Firewire iPods used the same dock connector as the USB version. The reason that the 3G iPod was thick was because of the hard disc and technology.

DeathscytheSeph
Dec 17, 2007, 10:14 AM
It's mean that if S3200 product is lunched MBP that has FW800 will use the S3200 product with full speed or we must wait Apple to change FW port on MBP first?

mus0r
Dec 17, 2007, 10:15 AM
As has already been stated, like any of this matters. The disks that we jack into these FW3200 enclosures are crap anyway, so you won't get any faster transfer rates unless you have flash drives or a killer RAID setup. Move along.

True, individual disks will not see a gain in performance. However, multiple drives WILL because each disk will have more bandwidth available to it. Keep in mind, Macs only have one Firewire bus, regardless of how many ports are on it. I would kill for that much peripheral bandwidth because I have several external drives as well as a Firewire audio interface and digital effects processor (which uses so much bandwidth on its own, the recommend giving it its own separate bus!).

I can't wait until this spec starts appearing on PCIe cards. I will have a nergasm :D

RoDe
Dec 17, 2007, 10:17 AM
THIS ROCKS!!!FIREWIRE finally a speed increase. Firewire was already kicking USB backside. But this will smash it in little bits. I love firewire. It's saved me countless times. Target diskmode is such a great feature.:D:D:D:D:D:D

diamond.g
Dec 17, 2007, 10:24 AM
It's never to late to do a way with HDMI. Having used it, it's complete mess.

The key would be of course will be intelligent switching on the devices that use the new Firewire. Allowing any port to be in or out.

I wonder if HDCP is supported over FW. Although I do believe 5C may be sufficient. Wiki says that 5C certificate has not been given to PC (or Macs) yet, so using FW all around may not give us any real (as computer users) benefits. Your average user doesn't even know that HDMI is convoluted.

The other thing that needs to be fixed is transporting data needs to be faster than realtime. I find it annoying to have to watch a tv show over again if I want to copy it off my DVR (using FW).

Squonk
Dec 17, 2007, 10:35 AM
What are you talking about. The last Firewire iPods used the same dock connector as the USB version. The reason that the 3G iPod was thick was because of the hard disc and technology.

Actually, when :apple: removed the firewire controller from the inside of the iPod with the 5G's, :apple: claimed they were able to make the iPod even thinner. It had nothing to do with the external dock connector.

I can feel the speed difference syncing my 4G with FW vs USB2. I know when I buy a 160GB/Classic, it is going to take a very long time for the initial load up. Boooo.

Here's to hoping that the FW3200 controller would be nice and thin and could be reintroduced to the Classics! Yeah, I'll pop for the FW cable myself...

guzhogi
Dec 17, 2007, 10:37 AM
Sounds like this'll be just like USB 1.1/2.0. You can plug a 1.1 device into a 2.0 port (or a 2.0 device into a 1.1 port) and it'll go, just at the lower speed.

Someone said something about USB3 and it being 4.8 Gbps. Where'd you hear that? That's the 1st time I've heard of it.

I wonder how Firewire 3200, USB3 & SATA II will compare in real world. I know that while USB2 has a higher "theoretical" bandwidth, Firewire 400 is still tons faster.

bigandy
Dec 17, 2007, 10:44 AM
Sounds like this'll be just like USB 1.1/2.0. You can plug a 1.1 device into a 2.0 port (or a 2.0 device into a 1.1 port) and it'll go, just at the lower speed.

Someone said something about USB3 and it being 4.8 Gbps. Where'd you hear that? That's the 1st time I've heard of it.

I wonder how Firewire 3200, USB3 & SATA II will compare in real world. I know that while USB2 has a higher "theoretical" bandwidth, Firewire 400 is still tons faster.

yeah, just like firewire 400/800 :p


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=usb+3.0

;)

notjustjay
Dec 17, 2007, 10:45 AM
Your average user doesn't even know that HDMI is convoluted.

*raises hand*

That'd be me. I don't have an HDTV yet, but starting to shop around. What do I need to know about HDMI?

daddywags214
Dec 17, 2007, 10:49 AM
*raises hand*

That'd be me. I don't have an HDTV yet, but starting to shop around. What do I need to know about HDMI?

allow me!

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hdmi.htm

simple question, simple answer!
:-)

I'd love to see a FireWire iPod again, but I agree that we most likely never will. I'm sure 90% of iPod users are on USB-only PCs. USB2 can be painfully slow (for what it's supposed to be), but once you do the initial loading, syncing a couple dozen new songs at any given point doesn't take but a minute or two.

2A Batterie
Dec 17, 2007, 10:59 AM
Just when everyone was asking what happened to FW? This will be great for professional audio. Now incorporating this and PCIe into one of those new "ultra-portable" MB's, and I'll be set.

SthrnCmfrtr
Dec 17, 2007, 11:06 AM
So what ever happened to 1394c (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/) also known as S800T?

1394c would be very, very sweet.

hiptobesquare
Dec 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
This is very interesting stuff. I would love to see Firewire come back to the iPod. As it becomes more than just a music player, it makes more and more sense. Plus with chip manufacturing shrinking, it should be easier to make firewire controller chips smaller.

And with flash memory sizes shrinking, real estate density problems inside small devices might be less of an issue than they were before. Look how small 2GB of flash on a micro SD card is... and that includes the plastic cover... even many times that size is still smaller than a 1.8" hard drive, or previous flash memory chips.

The Classic is the only one still working with moving hard drive platters, and as flash becomes cheaper and more plentiful, it will probably be going the way of portable hard drives, which are also going to flash technology. A faster connection with flash memory makes a lot of sense.

I would love to see a big-capacity flash-based ipod touch, in a dock, plugged into an HDTV with a FW3200 connection (no computer involved) and playing a movie, music, or picture show with a front-row like interface from the TV's remote, or from the multi-touch screen directly.

And with digital ccds coming down in price and up in quality, and memory becoming cheaper and more plentiful, I could see such a device also becoming a small pared-down flash-camcorder and still camera on an iPod Touch/iPhone future version. Not a professional grade piece, but still a convenient little addition. (they already combined the ipod with a cellphone, why not wrap a point&shoot camera/consumer-grade small camcorder like flip-video into it, too?)

Firewire would aid with that, as well. Connect it to a TV, and use the iPod's wifi connection to start a VOIP or Cellular connection for video-phone calls... The versatility could quite significantly increase with a nice solid, fast data connection like Firewire. ALL due to firewire's lack of reliance on a master controlling computer, and faster real-world transfer rates.

That, and the increasing ability for mac computer hardware to connect with more things, and do more things, like media-PC and DVR work, and high-speed, high-bandwidth peripherals, like high-capacity media devices, storage and backup, and video output.

I really hope that this helps Firewire make a phoenix-like return to the Mac platform in a big way, as well as the ipod.

JFreak
Dec 17, 2007, 11:19 AM
While I love it that my iPod has FireWire, I think that iPods have no substance to this thread at all. Their hard drives are so slow even FW400 could handle multiple iPods at once!

FW800 was great for one hard drive some two years ago, but current hard drives would be faster than that so update is very welcome for those people wanting to use multiple fast hard drives simultaneously. E-SATA, anyone? Nah, I'd rather take the new FW instead.

diamond.g
Dec 17, 2007, 11:21 AM
That, and the increasing ability for mac computer hardware to connect with more things, and do more things, like media-PC and DVR work, and high-speed, high-bandwidth peripherals, like high-capacity media devices, storage and backup, and video output.


That would be sweet. Slight problem, DTCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTCP)(5C) isn't decryptable by PC or Mac (http://www.diy-pvr-dvr-htpc.com/index.php/HDTV_Over_Firewire).

FCPnewbie
Dec 17, 2007, 11:23 AM
Am I the only one in here who never liked the FW800 connector?
I never felt that it locked in very securely and would liked to have seen a better connector with the new spec. I know I know, we all like to keep connectors the same so current cables continue working and it helps keep the cost down, but the old connector never instilled me with much confidence that it was going to stay put.

goosnarrggh
Dec 17, 2007, 11:24 AM
But what about all the Windows users with nary a Firewire port? For that reason I doubt Apple will ever use Firewire with an iPod again.

Every Sony-manufactured Windows PC has a Firewire 400 port built in. (Except they use the i.Link moniker, and they usually omit the power supply pins to allow them to squeeze the port into a smaller connector.) A similar story goes for HP machines IIRC. Acer, too.

Firewire 800 ports are harder to come by on stock PCs unless you purchase an expansion card.

Actually, when removed the firewire controller from the inside of the iPod with the 5G's, claimed they were able to make the iPod even thinner. It had nothing to do with the external dock connector.
Unless I'm mistaken, the exact same pins for a Firewire power and data connection are still reserved on the newest generation of iPod dock connectors. It's just that there's no circuitry connected to the data pins. It is plausible (I don't know how probable, though) that they really do owe some of their recent miniaturization successes to the fact that they've omitted that circuitry.

puckhead193
Dec 17, 2007, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8130/4.3.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Goly cow! Maybe I should hold off on that new drive I was think of getting. To bad my imac has fw

JFreak
Dec 17, 2007, 11:35 AM
Am I the only one in here who never liked the FW800 connector?

It's miles better than FW400 connector, but I would still have liked a *locking* connector (even optional connector lock, even if most cables were without locks).

FCPnewbie
Dec 17, 2007, 11:40 AM
It's miles better than FW400 connector, but I would still have liked a *locking* connector (even optional connector lock, even if most cables were without locks).

I'll agree that it was better than the FW400 4 pin connector. That one sucked hard, but the 6 pin felt about as secure to me as the FW800 one does.

If they really want to use this new spec on cameras and AV gear, then they might want to take a second look at how securely the connector locks into place.

Marx55
Dec 17, 2007, 11:40 AM
Hopefully Apple will add S3200 (FireWire 3200) to ALL new Macs and not jut the top ones, as previously done with FireWire 800.

And yes, a FireWire iPod (whatever the speed) would be also great.

bigandy
Dec 17, 2007, 11:45 AM
This is very interesting stuff. I would love to see Firewire come back to the iPod. As it becomes more than just a music player, it makes more and more sense. Plus with chip manufacturing shrinking, it should be easier to make firewire controller chips smaller.
Not going to happen. I can't see Apple reinstating something they removed like that. Unfortunate, but likely.

Every Sony-manufactured Windows PC has a Firewire 400 port built in. (Except they use the i.Link moniker, and they usually omit the power supply pins to allow them to squeeze the port into a smaller connector.) A similar story goes for HP machines IIRC. Acer, too.

.....but i.Link isn't technically FireWire. it was invented by Sony, along with the four pin port, specifically to avoid paying the royalties for the FireWire name. It's just very compatible ;)

PaulinMaryland
Dec 17, 2007, 11:46 AM
Could the new Firewire standard work with a mini Firewire connector?

edoates
Dec 17, 2007, 11:46 AM
It's never to late to do a way with HDMI. Having used it, it's complete mess.

The key would be of course will be intelligent switching on the devices that use the new Firewire. Allowing any port to be in or out.

Unless the new Firewire 3200 can support HDCP (copy protection) type schemes (no, I don't like them either), consumer electronics will continue to use HDMI and/or HDCP DVI. There are enough TVs, projectors, DVD, and HD-DVD and Bluray devices out there now that HDMI lives for a while yet.

My video cam has firewire for HDV transfers (wildly compress, but that's what on the tape, too) and HDMI for uncompressed 1920x1080 60i direct transfers (not recorded on tape); some newer cameras with solid state or Hard drive internals are starting to record higher band widths, but until you get to pro stuff now, it's all pretty compressed. Internal camera hard drives are too slow, and uncompressed HD uses up LOTS of space, and the solid state memory devices, like P2, are ungodly expensive.

Ed.

maxrobertson
Dec 17, 2007, 11:55 AM
But what about all the Windows users with nary a Firewire port? For that reason I doubt Apple will ever use Firewire with an iPod again.

Actually, it seems like most PCs are getting FireWire now (wow... what was that, a decade?). I saw a cheap tower at Wal-Mart and was surprised to find a nice FireWire port on it.

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 11:59 AM
Seeing as in Europe TV Sets that want to carry the "HD Ready" logo need at least 1 HDMI (or DVI) connection, why on earth do people think that this new Firewire format is going to have the slightest impact on HDTV and other consumer products what use HDMI? Currently I can't think of a single reason why Sony, Panasonic et al would even consider using this new connection type. People are barking up the wrong tree on the application of this new development if they think it will displace HDMI. That deal has been done and will be in place until the specification for the next generational shift in broadcast TV takes place in a few decades time!

Analog Kid
Dec 17, 2007, 12:12 PM
Indeed. USB2 is plenty fast for one 7200 rpm drive. Those 1.8" drives are pretty bad performance wise. But it's good enough for audio and stamp sized video. Plus you got those seek times, basically for every track that has to be synced.

You're right on the iPod drives, but USB2 isn't quite up to supporting a single 7200rpm drive (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html).

Same link indicates Windows does, in fact, run USB2 faster...

THIS ROCKS!!!FIREWIRE finally a speed increase. Firewire was already kicking USB backside. But this will smash it in little bits. I love firewire. It's saved me countless times. Target diskmode is such a great feature.:D:D:D:D:D:D
Gotta agree target disk mode is fantastic... Had an Xserve go down at work and brought it back up by booting it from my Powerbook in target disk mode.

FCPnewbie
Dec 17, 2007, 12:17 PM
Could the new Firewire standard work with a mini Firewire connector?

FW800 doesn't have a mini connector. You're thinking of the FW400 4 pin connector.

Here's the deal on the FW connectors:

FW400 had 2 different types (sizes) of connectors. The larger one was a 6 pin configuration that allowed the transmission of power to an external unit such as an external hard drive.
The smaller one was a 4 pin configuration that carried only data. No power.

FW800 as far as I know never had a smaller connector. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Sony's i-link is not limited to the smaller 4 pin connector. Some of their professional DVCam gear had the 6 pin connector which bore the i-link insignia.

mrkramer
Dec 17, 2007, 12:17 PM
Would it be any faster though? I thought the bottle neck was getting the data on to the disk as it's only 4200rpm.

firewire 400 is all they need for iPods, USB though is slower than firewire for loading songs to a HDD based iPod.

bigbossbmb
Dec 17, 2007, 12:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

A) HDMI 1.3 has way more data throughput than this new FW. You're a moron if you think this can get close to HDMI.

B) This better not delay my Harpertown Mac Pro!!!

macFanDave
Dec 17, 2007, 12:31 PM
Am I the only one in here who never liked the FW800 connector?
I never felt that it locked in very securely and would liked to have seen a better connector with the new spec. I know I know, we all like to keep connectors the same so current cables continue working and it helps keep the cost down, but the old connector never instilled me with much confidence that it was going to stay put.


It pains me to say that I've never used a FireWire 800 connector, even though I have had a port on my G5 PowerMac for four years!!!

What does that tell you about the market penetration of FW 800?

whatever
Dec 17, 2007, 12:32 PM
Actually, when :apple: removed the firewire controller from the inside of the iPod with the 5G's, :apple: claimed they were able to make the iPod even thinner. It had nothing to do with the external dock connector.

I can feel the speed difference syncing my 4G with FW vs USB2. I know when I buy a 160GB/Classic, it is going to take a very long time for the initial load up. Boooo.

Here's to hoping that the FW3200 controller would be nice and thin and could be reintroduced to the Classics! Yeah, I'll pop for the FW cable myself...

Well, it could also be because Apple no longer had to have two controllers in there (Firewire and USB).

Sweetfeld28
Dec 17, 2007, 12:35 PM
Target Disk Mode is the mainstay for me sticking with Firewire. I like the fact that the bus is powered, and i don't need an extra cable for power like i would for USB, just to power my pocket HD.


However, i don't see the Firewire 3200 be implemented any day soon. And even if it is, then they would have to figure out a way to make it as cost effective as USB [manufacturing cost], so more people/companies use it. Hopefully, it won't end up like FW800, when only Apple was/is selling it with their computers. But, yes lately FW400 has been becoming more and more common on the PC side of computers.

I just wish more Computer manufacturers would adopt the faster FW controllers.

whatever
Dec 17, 2007, 12:44 PM
allow me!

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hdmi.htm

simple question, simple answer!
:-)

I'd love to see a FireWire iPod again, but I agree that we most likely never will. I'm sure 90% of iPod users are on USB-only PCs. USB2 can be painfully slow (for what it's supposed to be), but once you do the initial loading, syncing a couple dozen new songs at any given point doesn't take but a minute or two.

One thing I learned is that HDMI is great an theory but awful in implementation.

Two things to keep in mind:
1. If you plan to run you Home Theater system through an AV/Receiver then you only need on HDMI port on your Display (you run a HDMI cable out from the receiver and into the Display).

2. Make sure that you Display also has Component Video. Everyone I talked to recommended that I go run Component Video as backup (granted all of my speakers are hidden in the wall and all of my components are tucked away in my basement, so all of my cabling is in the walls.). Some HDMI devices just don't work when you use a switcher (I've been lucky so far, but most of my stuff is from Pioneer's Elite line, but Cable boxes, TiVo and older devices appear to be the worst offenders).

I really wanted to go 100% HDMI for my setup, but eventually I gave in (granted the additional cabling only cost $250.00, so it really wasn't an issue).

Here is an excellent article on HDMI, entitled "What's the Matter with HDMI", I found that it really helped me.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi

iPhil
Dec 17, 2007, 12:45 PM
With S3200 this power advantage for FireWire is fully preserved. S3200 also makes FireWire so fast that users will see no advantage from eSATA. Both interfaces are much faster than any modern hard drive mechanism, but eSATA does not provide electrical power to operate a drive. On a computer, an eSATA port is far less flexible than a FireWire port, because many more devices can connect to FireWire. For these reasons, S3200 makes FireWire the superior choice for future external storage products.




The Silicon Working Group developed the S3200 specification within the 1394 Trade Association, with participation by industry leaders including Symwave, Texas Instruments, LSI Corporation, and Oxford Semiconductor. S3200 specifies the electrical operation of the 3.2 Gigabit mode first specified by IEEE 1394b-2002, without changing any connector, cable, protocol, or software requirements. Based on the working group's progress, the Trade Association has set a January 2008 date for the specification to enter a ratification process.



the quotes came from this site (http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2007Press/december/12.12.a.htm) Bolded sections are my doing ..

mccldwll
Dec 17, 2007, 12:46 PM
or what time it went down?

whatever
Dec 17, 2007, 12:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

A) HDMI 1.3 has way more data throughput than this new FW. You're a moron if you think this can get close to HDMI.

B) This better not delay my Harpertown Mac Pro!!!

Yeah, but what happens when you attempt a 100' run of HDMI cable.

Well, for starters, it will cost you a couple of thousand dollars, if you can find it and second it won't work!

Also many of the consumer products out today don't even support HDMI 1.3, they're still using HDMI 1.1 and 1.2.

Chris F
Dec 17, 2007, 12:57 PM
Few consumer products currently support HDMI 1.3.

Specific 1.3 features such as deep color are also almost non existent in the current market.

Wide spread adoption of 1.3 hardware will occur this year (almost everything will have it), support in media (e.g: BD discs using Deep Color) may be slightly slower.

notjustjay
Dec 17, 2007, 12:59 PM
Yeah, but what happens when you attempt a 100' run of HDMI cable.

Well, for starters, it will cost you a couple of thousand dollars, if you can find it

Uh, I beg to differ (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024002&p_id=2894&seq=1&format=2).

AidenShaw
Dec 17, 2007, 01:01 PM
Now incorporating this and PCIe into one of those new "ultra-portable" MB's, and I'll be set.

The Napa and Santa Rosa chipsets are PCIe-based, so it's almost a given that the smaller MBP will be PCIe.

A true "ultra-portable" might be based on a different chipset, but I doubt that anything much smaller than 12" or 13" will be coming until Silverthorne...

http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/mobile/block_diagram_945gm.gif

macinfojunkie
Dec 17, 2007, 01:06 PM
or what time it went down?

It'll be so funny if 3G iphones make an appearance :D

diamond.g
Dec 17, 2007, 01:12 PM
Few consumer products currently support HDMI 1.3.

Specific 1.3 features such as deep color are also almost non existent in the current market.

Wide spread adoption of 1.3 hardware will occur this year (almost everything will have it), support in media (e.g: BD discs using Deep Color) may be slightly slower.

Most of HDMI's features are fringe stuff that most average people don't care about. Firewire could displace it, assuming there is no need for those fringe things.

liberty4all
Dec 17, 2007, 01:32 PM
Yea, S6400 (6.4 Gbps) is on its way too, see:
http://lw.pennnet.com/display_article/312227/13/ARTCL/none/none/1/New-developments-in-IEEE-1394-(aka-FireWire)/

Thomas2006
Dec 17, 2007, 01:41 PM
But what about all the Windows users with nary a Firewire port? For that reason I doubt Apple will ever use Firewire with an iPod again.
I think both USB and FireWire could be used to sync and power the iPod and iPhone, but by using USB only, Apple doesn't have to deal with offering two types of cables, which cuts costs. Maybe USB 3.0 will give us our speed back.

bigbossbmb
Dec 17, 2007, 01:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

This will not replace HDMI in home theaters. This is for uncompressed HD in professional environments, not broadcast or optical media.

daddywags214
Dec 17, 2007, 01:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)

This will not replace HDMI in home theaters. This is for uncompressed HD in professional environments, not broadcast or optical media.

Yeah, exactly. It'd offer no advantage in a home theater setting, currently. It could have some good consumer uses when applied to computers, though, of course.

coolfactor
Dec 17, 2007, 02:37 PM
There isn't enough space in current generation iPods for a Firewire controller, it would also increase the price of the units. Just look at the thickness and cost of the third-generation iPod.

Firewire is dead in the water for iPods.


Close, but no cigar. On the iPod side, they use the thin iPod connector. Always been that way, except with the shuffles and the first-gen iPod.

Jetson
Dec 17, 2007, 03:54 PM
I miss my "plug and play" SCSI connectors.

:D

ezekielrage_99
Dec 17, 2007, 04:45 PM
This sounds great to me, however I got the feeling it's only going to be for a high end HD camera, Blu Ray Burner or a fast portable HDD.

offwidafairies
Dec 17, 2007, 05:02 PM
this is quite a foncusing thread. :confused: it would be great if it is backwards compatiable. if not, how soon til we see this in new macs? is jan too soon to hope for? not that im in the market for a new mac, but im sure i could convince someone i know to buy one ;)

mnb
Dec 17, 2007, 05:26 PM
specs for 1600 and 3200 firewire have been in the works for over 10 years.

I was wondering when they'd finally get off their butts and turn it into a product.

Of course, the IEEE spec is only the start (which, btw, has NOTHING to do with Apple). It'll be a couple years probably before we can buy something using it at the least.

mozmac
Dec 17, 2007, 06:18 PM
It's great to see that Firewire is not dying. When Apple dropped it off the iPod, I was a little worried. Can't wait to get my iMac with every freakin' new feature in it...in 2 years!

iPhil
Dec 17, 2007, 06:39 PM
this is quite a foncusing thread. :confused: it would be great if it is backwards compatiable. if not, how soon til we see this in new macs? is jan too soon to hope for? not that im in the market for a new mac, but im sure i could convince someone i know to buy one ;)



Yes the S3200 aka 1394C firewire is backwards compatible..


S3200 continues to allow FireWire peripherals to draw electrical power from the interface, and the 1394 Trade Association notes that S3200-based peripherals can draw more power from the interface than other competing standards. And S3200 is downwardly-compatible with FireWire products, just as FireWire 800 works with FireWire 400 devices as well.


If you you got FW 800 on the Mac and 1394C device then it'll clock down to the 800 speed ..


Has to be 1394c to 1394c to see the full speed.. :)

mdriftmeyer
Dec 17, 2007, 08:46 PM
ya, so while the connectors and cables are the same, you're going to need new Macs hardware to drive the FW3200 (?) devices.

arn

Go buy a 3 port FW3200 PCI card when they come out to put in your existing desktops and/or wait until a newer machine comes with 1 FW3200 slot built-in.

Here is a FW800 3 port:

Cost: $42.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158016

http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/15-158-016-01.jpg

mdriftmeyer
Dec 17, 2007, 08:48 PM
specs for 1600 and 3200 firewire have been in the works for over 10 years.

I was wondering when they'd finally get off their butts and turn it into a product.

Of course, the IEEE spec is only the start (which, btw, has NOTHING to do with Apple). It'll be a couple years probably before we can buy something using it at the least.

What the hell are you talking about?

Apple holds the Chair seat:

http://www.1394ta.org/Contact/Board/

TurboSC
Dec 17, 2007, 09:20 PM
would be a nice addition to a ultra-portable laptop with an external HDD running this new firewire speed.

AidenShaw
Dec 17, 2007, 11:08 PM
It's great to see that Firewire is not dying.

We'll have to see some devices and systems before we can judge the overall health of IEEE 1394...

eSATA is showing up for the high end storage - it's pretty common on motherboards and starting to appear on mainline systems. IEEE 1394c will have some trouble fighting eSATA for a storage bus.

X38
Dec 17, 2007, 11:51 PM
Yes the S3200 aka 1394C firewire is backwards compatible..


S3200 continues to allow FireWire peripherals to draw electrical power from the interface, and the 1394 Trade Association notes that S3200-based peripherals can draw more power from the interface than other competing standards. And S3200 is downwardly-compatible with FireWire products, just as FireWire 800 works with FireWire 400 devices as well.


If you you got FW 800 on the Mac and 1394C device then it'll clock down to the 800 speed ..


Has to be 1394c to 1394c to see the full speed.. :)

1394c is FW (800?) over Cat 5 cables.

FW3200 (or S3200) is part of the 1394b spec. 1394b has always included S1600 & S3200 modes in the spec, it was just never implemented. In the original 1394b, the S3200 mode was going to require optical fiber connections. The fascinating thing here is that after all these years of waiting for 3200, they've managed to implement it on existing FW800 plugs and cables. That will be a HUGE cost advantage over USB 3.0 in addition to all the inherent advantages of FW over USB. The 3200 speed is fast enough that the FW advantages will also outweigh any remaining benefit of eSATA, so hopefully we can avoid the nuisance of adding yet another interface standard.

Hopefully Apple will implement FW3200 on every new device they design, from ipod to xserve, in order to shove the consumer electronics interconnect market in a more consumer & user friendly direction. A few years ago there were rumors Apple was experimenting with using FW1600 to route the Mac's desktop to any FW connected display. Hopefully they will finally release this.

MBP15C2D4GBLED
Dec 18, 2007, 02:04 AM
I have a Sony PC from the heyday, and while Bigandy claims i.Link is not firewire, but just very compatible... Windows disagrees and notes my "i.Link" port is driven by a Texas Instruments OHCI IEEE1394 controller :)

So i.Link is firewire.

I think the problem was only the name of the port, not the using the standard. Apple branded 1394 as Firewire, then I think they gave it to the standards committee or licensed it for cheap or something like that...

Evangelion
Dec 18, 2007, 02:21 AM
would be a nice addition to a ultra-portable laptop with an external HDD running this new firewire speed.

What's the point? I mean, with FW800, the bottleneck is not FireWire, it's the HD itself. So unless you get hard-drives that are A LOT faster than current hard-drives, then all that bandwidth of the new FireWire would be more or less wasted.

Powers
Dec 18, 2007, 06:15 AM
What's the point? I mean, with FW800, the bottleneck is not FireWire, it's the HD itself. So unless you get hard-drives that are A LOT faster than current hard-drives, then all that bandwidth of the new FireWire would be more or less wasted.

My seagate drives will sustain 100MB/s on the outside sectors of the disc and will burst in excess of that. Firewire 800 can sustain about 80MB/s max. Too slow. Now if I setup a hardware RAID external connection I have to use SATA 3Gps:

2 HDs up to 200MB/s
3 HDs 300MB/s etc

Real world results are less given Hardware controller overheads etc but I can just saturate the 300MB/s of SATA 3Gps with 5 or 6 drives.

We need FW3200

The other benifists of FW over USB or sata:

1. true bi-directional
2. no CPU overheads
3. Daisy chain able; so no need for stupid USB hubs
4. Power over cable unlike SATA
5. One cable will deliver all bandwidth

Obviously SATA has port multiplyer for up to 5 devices over 1 cable but bandwidth does suffer a bit.

I'm sure others will list other benefits too.....

diamond.g
Dec 18, 2007, 06:47 AM
Does FW support NQC? If not, I am pretty sure you would see a speed hit.

AidenShaw
Dec 18, 2007, 09:28 AM
The 3200 speed is fast enough that the FW advantages will also outweigh any remaining benefit of eSATA, so hopefully we can avoid the nuisance of adding yet another interface standard.

Except that disk drives are native SATA, so manufacturers can put an eSATA port on an external drive without needing the expense of bridge electronics to do the protocol translation from SATA to 1394. Check the price of Seagate externals, you pay $15 to $25 extra for 1394 vs USB+eSATA.

S3200 is the "yet another interface standard nuisance". ;)


The other benifists of FW over USB or sata:

2. no CPU overheads
4. Power over cable unlike SATA

SATA doesn't have CPU overhead like USB, it's the same as an internal SATA disk - DMA and all.

Power is a minor benefit - 1394 doesn't supply adequate power for even a single 3.5" hard drive in most cases.

To make matters worse, 1394 doesn't specify a single power standard, the voltage and current can vary within a wide range of currents and voltages. See this Apple document (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_FireWire/Articles/FireW_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003892-SW1) to see the voltage and current capabilities of current Apple computers - and note that on laptops the voltage drops as the battery drains!

Compare the typical 7 watts supplied by an Apple 1394 port to the 12 watt average power consumption and 34 watt spinup power of a Seagate 7200 RPM disk...


Does FW support NQC? If not, I am pretty sure you would see a speed hit.

S3200 will be DOA for performance disk drives if it doesn't do NCQ, especially for external RAID controllers using an eSATA interface.

goosnarrggh
Dec 18, 2007, 10:30 AM
Not going to happen. I can't see Apple reinstating something they removed like that. Unfortunate, but likely.



.....but i.Link isn't technically FireWire. it was invented by Sony, along with the four pin port, specifically to avoid paying the royalties for the FireWire name. It's just very compatible ;)

From what I've read, Sony and Apple both own some of the patents that are required for any compliant implementation of the IEEE1394 spec, no matter what name the implementation happens to choose. And they both have to pay into (and receive portions of the payments from) the general royalty collection program, imposed by the 1394 Trade Association on behalf of all relevant patent holders, for every IEEE1394 device. (The royalty fee is currently $0.25 per end-user device)

i.Link and Firewire 400 are both compliant implementations of IEEE1394. They are signal-compatible with each other, (except for the occasional omission of power supply lines on some i.Link ports and the need for a direct pin-for-pin adaptor to go from one plug's geometry to the other), and virtually any equipment designed to bear one logo will work with other equipment using the other (as long as the OS has a driver for it).

Close, but no cigar. On the iPod side, they use the thin iPod connector. Always been that way, except with the shuffles and the first-gen iPod.
Nobody said there wasn't space in the connector for both the USB and the FireWire pins. But that's simply not the whole story.

You usually can't run wires from a FireWire or USB plug directly into the CPU. There is also control circuitry required as an intermediary. That circuitry takes up space on the logic board inside the iPod. By omitting the FireWire control circuitry, you free up space on the logic board. You can put that space to use doing other things, or you can simply shrink the logic board and miniaturize the product.

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 12:14 PM
Download Apple's FireWire SDK, there are tools in it for controlling your DVR over FW remotely from your Mac!

I wonder if HDCP is supported over FW. Although I do believe 5C may be sufficient. Wiki says that 5C certificate has not been given to PC (or Macs) yet, so using FW all around may not give us any real (as computer users) benefits. Your average user doesn't even know that HDMI is convoluted.

The other thing that needs to be fixed is transporting data needs to be faster than realtime. I find it annoying to have to watch a tv show over again if I want to copy it off my DVR (using FW).

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 12:22 PM
USB 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb#USB_3.0

Sounds like this'll be just like USB 1.1/2.0. You can plug a 1.1 device into a 2.0 port (or a 2.0 device into a 1.1 port) and it'll go, just at the lower speed.

Someone said something about USB3 and it being 4.8 Gbps. Where'd you hear that? That's the 1st time I've heard of it.

I wonder how Firewire 3200, USB3 & SATA II will compare in real world. I know that while USB2 has a higher "theoretical" bandwidth, Firewire 400 is still tons faster.

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 12:30 PM
S3200 is part of 1394b!

1394c is completely different -- FireWire over ethernet cabling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#FireWire_S800T_.28IEEE_1394c.29

Yes the S3200 aka 1394C firewire is backwards compatible..


S3200 continues to allow FireWire peripherals to draw electrical power from the interface, and the 1394 Trade Association notes that S3200-based peripherals can draw more power from the interface than other competing standards. And S3200 is downwardly-compatible with FireWire products, just as FireWire 800 works with FireWire 400 devices as well.


If you you got FW 800 on the Mac and 1394C device then it'll clock down to the 800 speed ..


Has to be 1394c to 1394c to see the full speed.. :)

diamond.g
Dec 18, 2007, 12:41 PM
Download Apple's FireWire SDK, there are tools in it for controlling your DVR over FW remotely from your Mac!

Which works great until you run into a 5C encrypted channel (or program).

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 12:42 PM
Think no mechanical components, like Flash RAM Drives to take advantage of the new speed, like Apple's upcoming subnotebook...

What's the point? I mean, with FW800, the bottleneck is not FireWire, it's the HD itself. So unless you get hard-drives that are A LOT faster than current hard-drives, then all that bandwidth of the new FireWire would be more or less wasted.

Daz777777
Dec 18, 2007, 12:48 PM
I've just spent $500 today on a G-Tech G Drive Q 750gb hard drive today for back up for my mac and for use with Time Machine. This is the first back up drive I've ever bought however after reading of about this and USB3 I'm just wondering if it's worth returning it and hanging on for 6 months or so in the hope that these new features will be in the next models or is this irrelevant for my needs?

Thanks

Darren

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 01:01 PM
WOW, did you get ripped off!

Much more cost efficient and better features to get a Newer Technology miniStack v3 (~$110 for bare enclosure) from OWC and add your own drive to it ($500 GB WD SATA 300 from Fry's)... Then you get eSATA, FW400/800, USB2 and hubs for FW 400/800 & USB 2...


I've just spent $500 today on a G-Tech G Drive Q 750gb hard drive today for back up for my mac and for use with Time Machine. This is the first back up drive I've ever bought however after reading of about this and USB3 I'm just wondering if it's worth returning it and hanging on for 6 months or so in the hope that these new features will be in the next models or is this irrelevant for my needs?

Thanks

Darren

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 01:04 PM
One of the saving graces of FireWire will likely be HANA, if products are ever released:
http://www.hanaalliance.org/

The High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance is the first cross-industry collaboration to address the end-to-end needs of connected, high-definition, home entertainment products and services


This would have been a much bigger deal two or three years ago (the HDMI vs Firewire part), now it just seems like a little too late.

All that is needed is to get Intel on board with using this new FW speed in their mainboards. It would get adopted a whole lot faster that way.

hiptobesquare
Dec 18, 2007, 01:12 PM
This thread kills me.

Every page there is at least one person who seems to be saying: "Who needs this, FW800 is faster than most hard drives."

A: Most != All.
B: Now != Future.
C: Firewire != Only hard drive use.

There are faster hard drives. They are only going to get faster.

We may be basing some things on platter-drives now, but that doesn't mean we always will be. SSDs (Solid-State Drives) are coming, and coming fast, as the prices of flash memory come down. That has the potential of being much faster.

FW3200, 6400, or whatever is a future standard. It needs to be considered with future conditions in mind. Saying that it isn't needed because it isn't immediately practical this instant is very short sighted.

And FireWire, in general, can handle more differentiated tasks than merely connecting disk storage, although that is a key function. Data transfer from portable devices (more and more of them, better every year) and data transfer from dissimilar devices, even without PC computer management.

Don't get stuck thinking of what firewire does today. The question is, what can it do tomorrow? (and Apple would be stupid if it let selfish pride determine that it would fail to re-include an improved feature on future iPods and like devices, like firewire, just because it was removed previously. This is different than proprietary connection scheme attempts like ADC, or older ADB or something. FW is an industry standard, and can be widely used for many different things.)

liberty4all
Dec 18, 2007, 01:32 PM
1394b FW800 video camera -- I think the first I've seen...

http://www.parameter.se/products/pgfiles/c5df1fe1-4dbe-4258-a179-4047a62e726b.pdf

diamond.g
Dec 18, 2007, 01:40 PM
1394b FW800 video camera -- I think the first I've seen...

http://www.parameter.se/products/pgfiles/c5df1fe1-4dbe-4258-a179-4047a62e726b.pdf

Man, they looked sweet till I looked at the specs. The HD level (1080p) one can't even record at that rez faster than 15 fps(YUV). That sucks.

RichardI
Dec 18, 2007, 04:44 PM
Sounds great, but historically, firewire has always cost a fortune compared to USB. I'll wait for USB 4.0........:p

Rich :cool:

Gamoe
Dec 18, 2007, 06:39 PM
Firewire 800 came out in 2003, now why doesn't my new MacBook have a FW800 port a good 4+ years later? Yes, yes.. I know... because only a niche group of people use it. But, only a niche group of people use it because it's not been made *available* to the larger group of users.

Apple needs to put this on *every* Mac, no matter how "consumer" or "Pro" it might be, and hopefully convince Intel to make it a standard on their boards. Kick out FW400 on the consumer models with less ports. Include an adapter cable for it. Don't get greedy with licensing fees... And the superior interface might well "win" this time around. ;-)

AidenShaw
Dec 18, 2007, 07:40 PM
Firewire 800 came out in 2003, now why doesn't my new MacBook have a FW800 port a good 4+ years later? Yes, yes.. I know... because only a niche group of people use it. But, only a niche group of people use it because it's not been made *available* to the larger group of users.

Apple needs to put this on *every* Mac, no matter how "consumer" or "Pro" it might be...

Yes, Apple doomed 1394b-800 to near irrelevance by making it an exclusive "pro" feature.

nickane
Dec 19, 2007, 06:46 AM
Yes, Apple doomed 1394b-800 to near irrelevance by making it an exclusive "pro" feature.

agreed. All these debates really annoy me cos even tho my ancient imac g5 only has fw400, i know that my next mac will have fw800, gig-E and probably e-sata so when I buy an external I have to have to factor all that in.

Anything better than FW800 only becomes much use once you start using a RAID anyways, and I've found out lately that that's its own can of worms. I need speed, space and stability, but Apple (and sony)'s stubbornness on some trivial licensing fee means the best standard apple has adopted isn't widely available after 4 years even on their own computers.

And you're right about e-sata being better than fw3200 too. FW has a ton of advantages over the other standards but sata is the default protocol of most drives, and who needs more than a foot-long cable length anyways.

Evangelion
Dec 19, 2007, 08:44 AM
My seagate drives will sustain 100MB/s on the outside sectors of the disc and will burst in excess of that.

And on inside-sectors, it can not. So the benefit of being able to reach 100MB/sec is marginal at best.

With RAID, things might be different, though. And if I had FW3200, I would propably hook my drives to it, if not anything but ***** and giggles :).

AidenShaw
Dec 19, 2007, 10:45 AM
And you're right about e-sata being better than fw3200 too. FW has a ton of advantages over the other standards but sata is the default protocol of most drives, and who needs more than a foot-long cable length anyways.

eSATA cables can be up to 2 metres long (in 'murkin, that's just over 6 feet).

By the way, http://www.sata-io.org/esata.asp has some good info on eSATA.

takao
Dec 19, 2007, 02:35 PM
well for external hard drives e-sata is looking like it will be the standard the coming years (at least on the non apple side where hardly anybody is using FW 800)

and most important.. it's already available and external devices are cheap

firewire's big advantage of having devices with built in controllers removes the problems with CPu being hit for file transfers but on the other side it has always been the biggest downside with it's higher prices

AidenShaw
Dec 19, 2007, 05:04 PM
well for external hard drives e-sata is looking like it will be the standard the coming years (at least on the non apple side where hardly anybody is using FW 800)

and most important.. it's already available and external devices are cheap

For SATA external drives, it's nearly free - since the drive is already SATA you don't need a controller to translate the data commands.



firewire's big advantage of having devices with built in controllers removes the problems with CPu being hit for file transfers but on the other side it has always been the biggest downside with it's higher prices

Actually, 1394 has *more* overhead than eSATA.

http://www.sata-io.org/esata.asp

USB and 1394 external drives are ATA drives with a bridge chip that translates from the ATA protocol to USB or 1394 protocol used for the connection. These interfaces require en-capsulation or conversion of the transmit data and then de-capsulation after the data is received. This protocol overhead reduces the efficiency of these host buses, increases the host CPU utilization or requires a special chip to off-load the host.

eSATA is the same SATA protocol from the same controllers used for internal SATA drives.

The "e" just means that a cable with better shielding and more robust connectors is being used to transmit the SATA packets.

Macinposh
Dec 20, 2007, 01:14 AM
What I personally see the biggest benefit for FW is the daisychaining ability of devices,different kinds.

I presently have 3 HDDs and a video camera daisied,all into a one port.
And now I am thinking adding a Tascam controller to the bunch,if the latency permits.

On the other hand,I still have 2 FW slots free...

kwong2006
Dec 20, 2007, 03:32 PM
So, I am ignorant when it comes to this, so bear with me.

If the cables and standards remain unchanged, and the only problem between updating FW800 to this new standard is the "controller", and assuming these "controllers" works under a firmware that can be upgraded, can Apple simply issue a firmware update and upgrade all FW800 ports to this new standard?

FastEddy
Dec 23, 2007, 11:40 AM
* Peer to peer operation.

* Co-processing across the cables is possible with FW.

* FW is faster at bulk file transfers at 400 mbps than USB is at 480 mbps.

* FW better noise reduction of power wires than USB (higher voltage, better cable design & better CMRR) ... particularly important with audio ... and now with the higher speeds = better "eye pattern".

* Double duplex instead of single duplex = better handshaking scenario = better reliability.

:rolleyes: