USB 2.0 - Not Yet... [Archive]

gotohamish

Jan 13, 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Abstract
People will hear about USB2.0, go out looking to buy a computer with all the newest and coolest stuff, and when they see that the Mac only has USB1.1, they'll just turn away and think, "So this is the digital hub?" This will bite Mac in the ass at the end. Of course, Mac will eventually cave in and add USB2 to their line, but by then, it'll look as if Apple is behind in both the Mhz race AND the implementation of new technology. They can't turn their backs on anything right now, especially if it proves to be a way for them not to fall behind the PC in another area.

I see people's point about it competing with FireWire400, but I also fully agree with what you're saying. I recently went looking for compuiters with my cousin (he want's a PC), but I was plugging the Mac, and the lack of USB2 was an issue, even though I said I doubt there's a peripheral he'll ever need with USB2 (as all the machines's specs we looked at has DVD, CDRW etc), and he only want to use Word and email/web.

He also said he didn't like the idea of no two button mouse and a new OS, then he tried a demo PC, and said "What's this? Is this XP? It's like learning a new language."

My point exactly I said, If you're going to learn a new OS, learn a) a better one, and b) something away from work, to get away from it all!

MikeH

Jan 13, 2003, 04:37 AM

Unless there is a significant cost issue, I don't understand why they are holding back with USB 2.

Although in speed terms it may be almost as quick as Firewire, as far as I'm aware it does not have it's functionality (can you control a DV Cam over a USB 2 cable as you can with FW?).

USB 2 would allow people to take advantage of low cost scanners and printers with out the speed penalty of them being dumbed down to USB 1 speeds, and all USB 1.1 devices will still be usuable - everyone wins as far as I can see.

Buggy

Jan 13, 2003, 05:46 AM

I only comes down to marketing as many have mentioned.

I doubt that USB2 is going to give knowledgable users much more. But for switchers or others, the lack of USB2 will be anissue for them... (Really not much of an issue but the impression of one is almost as strong).

I tihnk Apple can not buck the masses on this one. The should include it even if it costs them a couple of dollars per machine.

I have soo many PC users complain about the inability to expand an iMac and how great their machines are that they can expand them,,, but when pressed to answer the question of "have you ever expanded your computer?" Almost everyone says yes, I have put in RAM... but they are not able to go beyond that.

The vast majority of computer users I run into have very little real knowledge about their needs vs the power/potential of their ocmputers. Salesmen are too good at fooling people into buying more then they will use or need.

DannyZR2

Jan 13, 2003, 06:21 AM

`I'm just waiting for one person to actually give me a reason they need USB 2.. what is the point???

To me, a computer company is either gonna use USB 2 or Firewire....

and with Apple inventing Firewire, and now Firewire800, WHY ON EARTH would they need to put in USB 2? USB is for keyboards, printers, and mice.... i know for a fact that none of these devices use even close to the 12Mb max of basic USB 1.

I've yet to see a single thing to use USB 2 for (that I couldn't use Firewire for) and with Firewire800 now out, why would you ask Apple to include a sub-par protocol such as USB2?

Just doesn't make sense why all you morons are getting all worked up about this ... it's pretty senseless.

---

no offense to you arn, you are just providing us the news and rumors about the whole thing... but all of you who are not buying new macs because of the lack of USB2... you suck

OSeXy!

Jan 13, 2003, 06:21 AM

This is exactly the reason the Al12" ought to have a PCI slot! The TiBook and Al17" are 'future proofed' in this respect. Just pop in a USB2 card and who cares if Steve wants you to use it or not, it's just there (assuming you can get the drivers...). This is why Wall Street G3s (two PCI slots) can have FireWire and iBooks/iMacs of much later vintage cannot (well, not without a great struggle, anyway). Why did Apple skimp on this basic feature?

DannyZR2

Jan 13, 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by OSeXy!
This is exactly the reason the Al12" ought to have a PCI slot!

You mean a PC card slot???

yeah... thought so.. and yes.. I think that all notebooks should have PC card slots... including the 12" PB... and why not put them on the iMac and other non PCI slot macs? that way they have expandability???

OSeXy!

Jan 13, 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by DannyZR2
...and with Apple inventing Firewire, and now Firewire800, WHY ON EARTH would they need to put in USB 2?...
The only reason is because Apple cannot control the future. I think it is very possible that new consumer digital toys will adopt USB2 instead of FW. Then what? We'll all be saying "I'd love to get that new Camera, BUT I CAN'T PLUG IT INTO MY COMPUTER!". For the digital hub to really work, it can't be missing too many spokes.

DannyZR2

Jan 13, 2003, 06:45 AM

well, believe it or not.. apple has changed the way third-party manufactures make their toys...

how long has USB been out? it's been on every pc since 1997 i believe... but when did you start hearing about it? after the first iMac came out August 1998... Apple was not first, but they started the fire...

so what if they DON'T support USB2... that makes FW more attractive for manufacterers.... Apple has more push than we think I do believe... How big has Firewire gotten since it came out first in Apple's computers? I'm certain Firewire 800 will be the same way and then USB2 will look like the pointless venture it is.

Apple is being smart about this.. they are making consumers want Firewire 800 stuff, rather than USB2 stuff... I know that if I had a new 17" PB, I'd want a superfast external FW800 hard drive to go with it (with an superfast controller in the enclosure!)

The wrong with USB2 is that it's not really noticably faster than Firewire (1394a) at only 480Mb vs 400Mb... it just looks a bit better on paper... but really it's not... 800Mb is better, and worth the trouble to design new toys for.

MikeH

Jan 13, 2003, 06:59 AM

OK we all know that Firewire is better than USB (1 or 2). But for the most part it's overkill, and comparatively expensive.

How many scanners for under $500 have Firewire? I can only think of one, and that doesn't come with OS X drivers. For low cost consumer level hardware USB 2 is a better bet, where as Firewire is better for DV capture and more pro-level hardware.

Firewire has it's place and so does USB 2. I don't think they are direct competitors. Why turn your nose up at USB 2 just because Apple didn't invent it?

AmbitiousLemon

Jan 13, 2003, 07:10 AM

i was reading this thread wondering why everyone was being so stupid then i finally got to the last two posts and was relieved to see someone with a brain. thanks DannyZ and OSexy.

this is a battle of interfaces. FW versus USB. Firewire is the superior connection. Even fw1 was faster than usb2 but people are duped into thinking usb2 is faster. Apple needs to pull out all the stops in order to win this. I for one do not want to be stuck with crappy usb2 interfaces on everything in a few years. Apple has shown time and again that they are able to control the market. As DannyZ noted usb wasn't fully adopted until Apple began using it. Also note that Firewire 800 is already seeing excellent support. lacie, maxtor, smartdisk all alreaady have firewire800 hard drives out (oxford 922 chipsets). look at the support rendezvous is already getting and apple has barely implemented it itself!

Apple is an innovated. the industry looks to Apple to see where personal computing is going. By not supporting an inferior standard like usb2 apple is helping the industry find the proper path.

i know it is hard to understand for all of you sheep out there shouting you need usb2 (so your mouse can go faster or something) but this is a strategical move by apple and an intelligent one.

DannyZR2

Jan 13, 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by MikeH
For low cost consumer level hardware USB 2 is a better bet, where as Firewire is better for DV capture and more pro-level hardware.

Low Cost consumer = USB 1.x - If you're looking at either USB2 or 1394x, you are beyond low cost consumer... your printer and scanner and digital still camera are great for USB1, but is there a need for USB2? I don't see it.. PC or Mac! You can't power the devices from the USB2 bus and can't control the devices from the USB2 bus... why is there even a need for USB2? I'll tell you.. because it's "theoretically faster than Firewire" - Now that 1394b is out... that no longer exists... so there is no longer a need for USB2...

"so your mouse can go faster or something" HAHA!!! LMAO!!! that is great!

gotohamish

Jan 13, 2003, 07:26 AM

Hi,

i needed 4 more USB ports in my PowerMac, and didn't want a hub, and the only card I could find was a USB2 one, figuring I don't care if the 2.0 bit doesn't work, as long as the 1.1 does, I bought it - and it doesn't even recognise 1.1 devices. Any ideas people - I need help!! I thought 2.0 was supported in Jaguar.

kiskadee

Jan 13, 2003, 07:35 AM

:confused: Apple should give us USB 2.0. Just because switchers might already have USB2.0 devices. I bought recently a USB2.0 cdwriter. Because i would mostly use it on PC's without Firewire. I was happy being apple to use it on my pismo, but now i'm getting bored of it slowness on that powerbook.

Firewire cdwriters are also more expensive in my area (belgium)

I don't think USB will ever be able to kill Firewire! (Ipod / DV / ...)

ps: :D because apple now has the mac os x for teachers program also in Europe !!!

Clockwork

Jan 13, 2003, 08:01 AM

Be careful when comparing firewire and usb when it comes to transfer rates. Firewire comes much closer to it's theoretical peak.

In my opinion Firewire is great for cameras, scanners, printers, harddrives and networking. This has alot to do with the architectural advantages of Firewire. You can control peripherals over Firewire(such as tape decks and cameras), it can provide power/charge your external units and it guarentees 100% that you recieve what you send. No packet loss.
Firewire is however more expensive to implement.
USB is very good for slower peripherals such as mice and keyboards.
Firewire and USB will continue to evolve together and neither one will kill off the other.
1394b has recieved very good reviews since Apple announced it and the first wave of devices have started to arrive.
I don't think the case is that Apple does'nt want to implement USB2. There is still very little use for USB2 and it still cost's more than USB1.0. Consumer digital cameras still use USB1.0 and the Pro cameras still use Firewire.
As for those of you who think that Firewire vs. USB is a case of Apple vs. Intel then I have news for you. Intel is one of the most active developers of IEEE1394.
As for Firewire killing off other standards you should look towards Ethernet as we know it today. IP over Firewire is great and will no doubt catch on to those of us who love to use Firewire for as much as we can.

kiskadee

Jan 13, 2003, 08:23 AM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but why shouldn't they use firewire to connect hard drives... I don't mean external harddrive because those still use an ATA/IDE interface but special firewire drives (if those exist of course). It is already faster than the new interface intel is developping under the name Serial ATA and firewire is chainable, hot plugable,... Firewire rules...
So i would say: Go Firewire for al very fast devices (harddisks, DV, 'pro' devices) and USB2.0 for consumer devices (low cost scanners, printers, cd writers,...)

Bear

Jan 13, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by DannyZR2

Low Cost consumer = USB 1.x - If you're looking at either USB2 or 1394x, you are beyond low cost consumer... your printer and scanner and digital still camera are great for USB1, but is there a need for USB2? I don't see it.. PC or Mac! You can't power the devices from the USB2 bus and can't control the devices from the USB2 bus...[/I]

I have seen USB2 devices that take power from the USB bus.
Low end scanners are faster than USB1 speeds. (Or would be if they were on a USB2 interface.
If you don't believe me, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 (and other low end Canon scanners.
And as for the cost of USB2 based scanners, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 - $99(US). I think this counts as low cost.
No, I have no relation to Canon. Except that I am probably buying one of their scanners

Furious Tiger

Jan 13, 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Abstract
People will hear about USB2.0, go out looking to buy a computer with all the newest and coolest stuff, and when they see that the Mac only has USB1.1, they'll just turn away and think, "So this is the digital hub?"

I'd like for you to show me what cameras, DV cameras, MP3 Players etc and thier companies have USB 2.0 and advertise them. Very, very, very, very few. Almost one or two products. There are external HDs and burners, but moat PC users that I know do not like that option like us Mac users do. On top on the fact that when these uninformed PC users buy a USB 2.0 product and realize that it will step down to USB 1.1 speeds because of thier keyborad or mouse. It does not make sense. The first incarnation of USB 2.0 and Firewire400, Firewire still kills USB 2.0 in actual performance (TechTV)

Anecdoter

Jan 13, 2003, 09:50 AM

While it can be agreed upon that Firewire is superior to USB 2.0, it should also be agreed upon that USB 2.0 is a more established technology. USB 2.0 external hard drives, CD and DVD burners, optical drives, printers, scanners, hubs, etc are everywhere. There's even USB 2.0 external sound cards and cable modems. A brief search of PriceWatch.com for "usb 2.0 drives" shows 38 pages of matches at 15 results per page (570 results) - a search for "USB 2.0" yielded 258 pages (3870 results)A search for "firewire drives" shows 35 pages at 15 results a page (525 results) - a search for "Firewire" gave me 114 pages (1710 results).
The reason is simple: nearly every PC sold now and during the past year (at least) has at least one USB 2.0 port (on average four), yet only a minority of those same machines have a Firewire port of any kind (Sony is an exception). Perhaps Firewire 800 will be a little more ubitiqous, but currently USB 2.0's widespread use is why it gets incorporated into most devices.
The battle of a more superior technology over a more common one is nothing new (think Betamax vs. VHS). Firewire has held its own by dominating the niches its superiority really shines through - external storage, video. Firewire will continue to do so in these areas and will most likely expand.
However, USB 2.0 will be with us for awhile. Too many people are using it and creating products that use it. As pointed out in other posts, USB 1.1 is enough for a lot of "cosnumer" applications - external floppy drives, joysticks, ink-jet printers. USB 2.0 is good for more "pro" uses - high-speed laser printing, CD/DVD/Optical external devices that cannot read faster than 400 mbps. I wouldn't be suprised if Firewire 800 started pushing USB 2.0 out of cable modems, high-end digital cameras and external sound cards though.
The point of my rather long and convuluted message is: USB 2.0 has its place. To ensure that Apple computers work with literary thousands of devices that use USB 2.0 at optimal speeds, Apple should incorporate USB 2.0 into their systems. It is ridiculous to think that if you spend $3200 on a top of the line Power Mac you cannot use a widely adopted standard that is support by many products without first buying an $8 controller card.
I encourage anyone who agrees with me to write Apple (http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html) and tell them why APple needs to add USB 2.0 to their next hardware revisions. Share your stories of trying to get PC users to switch who balk at the fact that Apple does not support USB 2.0 Tell them about all the devices you cannot use at advertised speeds because your Mac connects to them via USB 1.1 and not 2.0

ktlx

Jan 13, 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
this is a battle of interfaces. FW versus USB. Firewire is the superior connection. Even fw1 was faster than usb2 but people are duped into thinking usb2 is faster. Apple needs to pull out all the stops in order to win this. I for one do not want to be stuck with crappy usb2 interfaces on everything in a few years. Apple has shown time and again that they are able to control the market. As DannyZ noted usb wasn't fully adopted until Apple began using it. Also note that Firewire 800 is already seeing excellent support. lacie, maxtor, smartdisk all alreaady have firewire800 hard drives out (oxford 922 chipsets). look at the support rendezvous is already getting and apple has barely implemented it itself!

You are in fantasy land.

For things like scanners, digital cameras (not camcorders), printers, CD and DVD writers both Firewire and USB 2.0 are equivalent technically from an end user's standpoint. The advantages that Firewire has for those devices are purely theoretical from an end user's view. However the cost difference is real. USB 2.0 often shaves as much as $25 off the price (for whatever reason).

USB 2.0 is not supported by Apple and only relatively new PC computers have USB 2.0 support and already look at the number of devices with USB 2.0 interfaces. In one or two years I think it will be difficult to find scanners and digital cameras with Firewire interfaces unless they have been released today.

Just because Firewire 800 has more bandwidth does not mean USB 2.0 will not be a success. It is just like comparing USB 1.1 and Firewire 400. Both are very successful because each has a place. The same will be true for USB 2.0 and Firewire 800. USB 2.0 will be used for inexpensive devices that cannot afford to have the additional costs associated with Firewire.

Apple will have to support USB 2.0 or Mac users will find more and more lower end consumer devices that will not work very well. You can hold your breath and ignore market realities all you want but in the end USB 2.0 have the same market success that USB 1.1 did. Neither Firewire 400 or 800 will in any way prevent that success.

TheInevitable

Jan 13, 2003, 10:05 AM

If Macs started using USB2, then manufacturers would see that as a green light to go crazy making USB2 devices. What Apple/we wants is more Firewire devices. If a potential switcher is going to not switch because of no USB2, I doubt they are ready to switch. I think Apple's decision makes good business sense.

gopher

Jan 13, 2003, 10:11 AM

USB 2 may be spec'ed at faster than Firewire 1, but it isn't even close to Firewire 1 in terms of actual speed.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3393571,00.html

ennerseed

Jan 13, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by OSeXy!
This is exactly the reason the Al12" ought to have a PCI slot! The TiBook and Al17" are 'future proofed' in this respect. Just pop in a USB2 card and who cares if Steve wants you to use it or not, it's just there (assuming you can get the drivers...). This is why Wall Street G3s (two PCI slots) can have FireWire and iBooks/iMacs of much later vintage cannot (well, not without a great struggle, anyway). Why did Apple skimp on this basic feature?

Well, hmmm lets see, how 'bout: no room!
And lets say they could, they would have to make everthing else smaller and that would just bring up the price...
Thats like "why doesn't it have a seperate number pad and arrow keys that are to the right of the keyboard?" Screw it, while we're at it "why is there not an 8 hard drive raid on it either"

Sorry to be so condescending, but think about it.

The 12" is supposed to appeal to people that either: want a small laptop (which you usually don't get all the features you are getting in this machine), or a cheaper "pro" laptop (which as I pointed out before, you just can't make everything smaller and keep the price down).

pianojoe

Jan 13, 2003, 10:39 AM

FW800 paves the way for putting USB 2 in the new machines without making it the fastest interface in specs that they have.

Why include it? Well, in the PC world, USB 2 is reality. Switching to a machine with not-so-fast USB is percieved as a downgrade. Plus, some switchers might have USB 2 external devices.

"Switch! You don't even have to buy a new _________ (insert favourite printer, scanner, digicam, burner)! Just plug it in." would make a cool ad.

BTW, if USB 2.0 means that we get 2 more USB ports (1.1-compatible) for a total of 4 USB ports on a Power Mac, I'm game.

Sputnik Group

Jan 13, 2003, 11:12 AM

1. Apple should suppot both USB 2.0 and Firewire 800 period.

we need to show the world that the Mac is the best platform, once again my pc friends have a reason to state that the Mac is not able to do something-and that is a true statement.

fact: Firewire 800 will blow USB 2.0 out of the water.

fact: we still can't run a new USB 2.0 printer on a new mac.

Why can't apple give us a win win situation.

Note:
I just picked up the Epson 2450 Firewire Scanner at
Circut City 399-100 rebate $299 sweet deal (OS X driver for photoshop 7.0 w/OS 10.2 works great!)

.sg

Hmm

Jan 13, 2003, 11:34 AM

Remember the Firefly (http://www.smartdisk.com/Products/Storage%20Products/Hard%20Drives/FWFL.asp) drive that uses the same disk that's in the iPod? The 20 GB version is no longer available in Firewire, only USB 2. Maybe it's only temporary, but if that's a preview of things to come, then maybe it's not such a bad idea for Apple to jump on the USB 2.0 bandwagon.

dprlynch

Jan 13, 2003, 11:34 AM

It's not only Apple that isn't adopting USB 2.0 - alot of Windows manufacturers took a long time to adopt it (and haven't entirely yet).

The only major devices I've seen using USB 2 are external hard drives. Everything other peripheral I've seen is USB; if it NEEDS a higher transfer rate (ie digital camcorders), it uses Firewire.

So it's not just Apple that's not supporting USB 2. Windows boxes look like they "happen to have it, just in case you need it", and most devices I've seen don't use it. The whole industry seems to just look it and go "eh, whatever". Especially when you have Firewire 400 that's been around for longer and that the developers are used to working with.

thies

Jan 13, 2003, 12:01 PM

USB2: there are numerous peripherals using it by now. every PC can be upgraded to USB2 with a PCI card.

FW800: there is one laptop who uses it which does not even ship yet. I know of no peripherals which need it. I'm not aware of a way to upgrade an old mac to FW800.

sooo, I guess Apple does not include USB2 as FW800 would be introuble then.

OSeXy!

Jan 13, 2003, 12:43 PM

My only point about the Al12" is that it does not and cannot in the future support USB2 OR FW800. Period.
Apple has done a great job showing what FW400 can do with the iPod. You'd think it would try to blow everything USB out of the water with FW800 - but then it's not even possible to use it on all of its 'next gen' machines (of which there are only two...). It just makes it look like Apple itself isn't completely supporting the new tech. So what are hardware developers to make of that? I wish Apple would really go for the jugular on this!
I know the only reason why there is no FW800 or PCMCIA slot on the Al12" is that that machine, great though it is, is really an iBook with a G4 in it. I think Apple is testing the water with this model. If it is successful, you better believe there will be a few more 'pro' features on rev.B. And yes, they will somehow fit into just as small a box. And I will buy that box.

EDIT> corrected typos

thies

Jan 13, 2003, 12:48 PM

which device do you think you will need in the next few years for which you will need either a USB2 or FW800 port on a 12" PB? USB2 is more in the league of FW400 and most units which connect via USB2 also come with a FW plug. FW800 is for highend professional equipment ... which doesn't even exist at this point. The 17" PB is a highend laptop and comes with a highend FW800 port. the 12" PB is a pro laptop, but not really absolutely highend (as can already be seen at the price of it) and thhus does not come with FW800 but FW400 and USB1.1 which should be sufficient for years to come.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 01:31 PM

AHHHHHHHHHHHH

I repeat

AHHHHHHHHHHHH

Maybe some of you have missed out on this point. All computers come with USB, no? There is no harm in upgrading it to USB 2.0. I repeat, there is no harm in upgrading to USB 2.0. Has IDE killed the SCSI market? How about CD-RW and Zip drives?

FW and USB are not intended to be competing technologies. Most people don't give a crap as long as it works. The manner in which some of you debate is exactly the reason people hate computers- they just want something that works! I know that if my mother went out on her own to buy an external CDR/W drive that she could buy either a Firewire or USB drive and have it work the same. But, if all Apple does is drags their heels on the 2.0 issue, then that benefit wouldn't exist. Devices are only going to require more bandwidth, not less. Not upgrading to 2.0, no matter how great the merits of Firewire, will eventually cost Mac users. It's the exact same thing that happened when all macs were scsi drives. Apple was too arrogant to use IDE, even though it was cheaper and the performance was more than adequate for most of their users, and it did nothing but drive up the costs of macs. They finally switched to IDE, and some people complained, but those that wanted to use SCSI did so. If you have a personal vendetta against USB, fine, don't buy a device. But don't punish the rest of the world that doesn't give a whooey and just wants something that works as advertised.

zarathustra

Jan 13, 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by kiskadee
Correct me if i'm wrong, but why shouldn't they use firewire to connect hard drives... I don't mean external harddrive because those still use an ATA/IDE interface but special firewire drives (if those exist of course). It is already faster than the new interface intel is developping under the name Serial ATA and firewire is chainable, hot plugable,... Firewire rules...
So i would say: Go Firewire for al very fast devices (harddisks, DV, 'pro' devices) and USB2.0 for consumer devices (low cost scanners, printers, cd writers,...)

A while back there was talk that there would be *pure* firewire harddrives, and the original g4s came with an internal firewire plug. However, this seemed too costly for harddrive manufacturers, and it was dropped in favor of bridging IDE to firewire. Someone please correct me if I am worng (no flames though). ;)

OSeXy!

Jan 13, 2003, 01:38 PM

thies, your question is fair enough. The answer is 'I don't know'. I guess one of the things which has caught my eye lately is 'informal' FW networks configured via rendezvous (no FW peripherals - just other computers). This seems like it would be really great for small businesses - and even better if everyone is on FW800.
But then again I suppose Airport 'Extreme' or FW400 would do that job well enough. It will be interesting to see which of all these new 'standards' - from bluetooth to FW800 - survives the Darwinian (no pun) clash over the next few years.

kenohki

Jan 13, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by ktlx

You are in fantasy land.

The advantages that Firewire has for those devices are purely theoretical from an end user's view. However the cost difference is real. USB 2.0 often shaves as much as $25 off the price (for whatever reason).

The disadvantages of USB become apparent the faster you go. USB relies on a host processor to do the work of processing a transaction/transfer. The faster you go, the more processor cycles you've lost to maintaining that 480Mbps theoretical transfer speed. This is also the reason that USB devices are cheaper. They have hardly any logic on-board. FireWire devices in comparison, are capable of initiating transactions between themselves without the host computer. Thus, they require logic on-board and this increases the cost somewhat. However, Intel has recognized this and is working on something called USB Plug'N'Go (or something like that). It works in the same manner as FireWire (devices are peers) and is expected to cost just as much or more to implement as FireWire.

In one or two years I think it will be difficult to find scanners and digital cameras with Firewire interfaces unless they have been released today.

Just because Firewire 800 has more bandwidth does not mean USB 2.0 will not be a success. It is just like comparing USB 1.1 and Firewire 400. Both are very successful because each has a place. The same will be true for USB 2.0 and Firewire 800. USB 2.0 will be used for inexpensive devices that cannot afford to have the additional costs associated with Firewire.

Agreed that FireWire can't succeed in the consumer arena on it's technical merits alone. However, as exhibited by all these different versions of USB that are going to exist...Intel may cause some consumer frustration and confusion in the market for USB.

Apple will have to support USB 2.0 or Mac users will find more and more lower end consumer devices that will not work very well. You can hold your breath and ignore market realities all you want but in the end USB 2.0 have the same market success that USB 1.1 did. Neither Firewire 400 or 800 will in any way prevent that success.

Apple pretty much started the USB craze by not supporting legacy ports on it's computers. Meanwhile, most PCs are still using PS/2 port keyboards and mice. Apple not supporting USB 2.0 at this point in time is not THAT big of a deal. Hell, even Microsoft decided to support USB 2.0 only recently. They still have time and USB 2.0 is still in it's infancy. Maybe the better thing for Apple to do is to work with the 1394 Trade Association to go drum up some big wins. Maybe then we'll see more FireWire 800 device support.

yosoyjay

Jan 13, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by DannyZR2

and with Apple inventing Firewire, and now Firewire800, WHY ON EARTH would they need to put in USB 2? USB is for keyboards, printers, and mice.... i know for a fact that none of these devices use even close to the 12Mb max of basic USB 1.

Maybe because devices can't get close to the 12Mbps max of a USB1 bus. A single device can only use up to 9Mbps.

I really don't buy the arguments against putting USB2 in new Macs. There is not a damn thing wrong with upgrading the USB ports to the newer version, especially when all new Firewire ports should be upgraded as well.

yosoyjay

Jan 13, 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by dprlynch

Refering to USB2

Windows boxes look like they "happen to have it, just in case you need it", and most devices I've seen don't use it.

I've noticed the same thing with this thing called Firewire on Macs. I've seen a few people use it, but it seems more like they "happen to have it, just in case you need it", and most devices I've seen don't use it.

kenohki

Jan 13, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by yosoyjay

I've noticed the same thing with this thing called Firewire on Macs. I've seen a few people use it, but it seems more like they "happen to have it, just in case you need it", and most devices I've seen don't use it.

Hmmm, 'cept for the iPod, most portable external hard disks, and the vast majority of DV camcorders (all of which I use BTW).

jettredmont

Jan 13, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by thies
which device do you think you will need in the next few years for which you will need either a USB2 or FW800 port on a 12" PB?

Hmm. Well let's start with a list of items that would benefit from the increased bandwidth of FireWire 800/1600/3200:

External drives
Digital video equipment

Now, I can see wanting the largest screen possible for digital video equipment (although I can also see wanting to connect that same equipment up to your 12" portable in the field ...), but you don't think that it would be nice to be able to plug a high-speed external drive into your portable?

On the other hand, the fact is that neither of those options is really up to using FW800 yet, as far as I can tell. It's not even maxing out FW400 except in extreme cases. So let's expand our horizons a bit:

Super-fast mini-nets of computers (make your friends' powerbooks and yours into a multi-processor cluster)

Anything else?

The thing is, is there a reason why you wouldn't want access to these same devices on your smaller laptop, especially as your smaller laptop is sold as the "smallest fully-functioning laptop"?

[quote]
USB2 is more in the league of FW400 and most units which connect via USB2 also come with a FW plug.
[/uote]

True. False. Yes, USB 2.0 and FireWire 400 are the competitors, while FW800 is the "future tech" with no USB competitor et (although it has other interconnect tech competing with it ...). However, I don't believe your claim that "most" USB 2.0 units also come with a FW400 plug. They don't. A few do (I can only think of one, but there are bound to be at least a couple more). Most don't. Yes, you often (maybe 30% of the time) have a choice of two items from the same manufacturer which are equivalent except for the USB2/FW400 port on the back, but that's no help in interoperability.

thies

Jan 13, 2003, 03:41 PM

it seemstodays dv equipment for the hobby sector isn't fully utilizing Fw400. Fw800 especially on a PB12 would be overkill. linking laptops with friends over Fw800? I doubt I ever have enough people I know actually buy those devices, let alone have enough data in the foreseeable future to max out Fw800 or even 400 for that matter. Fw800 diskdrives on it? again, no need for it. absolute overkill. got to wonder if the rest of the system could even keep up with delivering data fast enough.

yosoyjay

Jan 13, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by kenohki

Hmmm, 'cept for the iPod, most portable external hard disks, and the vast majority of DV camcorders (all of which I use BTW).

Exactly.

-hh

Jan 13, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by kenohki

The disadvantages of USB become apparent the faster you go. USB relies on a host processor to do the work of processing a transaction/transfer. The faster you go, the more processor cycles you've lost to maintaining that 480Mbps theoretical transfer speed.

So in other words, not supporting USB 2 is a way that Apple can make their machines effectively run faster (less overhead), despite the MHz/GHz gap.

FWIW, I can see the dillemma in Apple's USB situation: formally supporting USB 2 will likely cannabalize Firewire peripherals for the mid/lower end of the market.

Perhaps a FW2-USB2 bridge/dongle would be a good product to offer. Perhaps also a commercial spot showing significant %-CPU being consumed by USB 2 while the PC's just sitting there might make for a clever advertising piece - - a focus on total CPU efficiency rather than raw power...and don't forget to have the Windows firewall & virus-checker vampiring many clock cycles off the Windows PC system too!

Meantime, I find that my new USB scanner runs noticably slower than my old SCSI one...Argh!

-hh

jasonbw

Jan 13, 2003, 04:14 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bear

If you don't believe me, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 (and other low end Canon scanners.
I just bought one last week, and it is slow on my 867 mdd. on the other hand, my epson 1200u at work is easily faster on usb 1.1

the sad thing is, if i just plugged the damn thing into my dell w/usb2 at home, i could tell you if it made a difference. i'll get back to you.

pyrotoaster

Jan 13, 2003, 04:46 PM

I don't blame Apple for waiting to adopt USB 2.0, to them it probably seems a little unnecessary.
In theory, there's nothing USB 2 can do, that USB 1.1 or Firewire (400 and 800) can't do. Apple is just waiting. Stalling...

On the Mac OS, USB serves a menial purpose. Mice, keyboards, and laptop snake lights. Apple wants to make a greater push towards Firewire, and Bluetooth. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a wireless keyboard with the new Power Macs (I also wouldn't be surprised if we didn't).

I think Apple will adopt USB 2, but they won't make a big deal out of it. Instead, they'll try and force Firewire as a standard instead (after all, Apple did invent Firewire).

If there really isn't USB 2.0 on the new Power Macs, I think Apple will only put it on consumer machines. I'm thinking about the upcoming iMac and eMac revisions here. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kept Firewire 800 off of the eMac (maybe), and opted for USB 2.0 support first.

I'm pretty sure Apple sees USB 2.0 as a trivial technology compared to something like Firewire 800, but we'll see it on upcoming machine revisions, anyway.

shadowfax

Jan 13, 2003, 04:48 PM

It's so funny how we come to apple's defence on their not giving consumers choices (on the USB issue). i read the argument that they didn't have the space to do it: shoot, just take out USB 1.1, 2 is backwards compatible. there is no space adjustment. and even if there were, this is apple, not some third-rate PC manufacture whose designers graduated with 2.0 GPAs and just BAs. they're sharp people up there at cupertino. they can do whatever they want, from a design standpoint. of course USB 2.0 is more expensive than 1.1. that doesn't stop them from putting Gb ethernet on their laptops and desktops. that's more expensive, and i am sure all of 1% of powerbook users actually employ Gb ethernet. it's cool, very cool, but shoot, you know how much you have to drop for a Gb ethernet switch? i don't think i have ever seen one other than expensive mission critical types. and here we have USB 2, which honestly is a pretty good nascent technology with more than adequate hardware supporting it. i have that canoscan Lide 30. there's no way in hell i am ever going to be able to afford a FW scanner. 300$ for a scanner is outrageous for me. i can certainly see how it would be helpful.

particularly, as has been mentioned, on the AlBook/12"s. my god, they advertised it with a photographer. i KNOW there are plenty of USB 2 cameras. and i KNOW USB 2 is far far better than 1.1. who cares if it's worse than firwire of any grade?

There was a good point made: apple can't put EVERYTHING on their computers, for practical and pecuniary reasons. that's exactly right. but while it's easily argued that consumers can get a peripheral of any type (almost) for (almost) any standard (barring, significantly, FW mice, and fruity-sounding stuff like that), why should apple limit users' options senselessly? i mean, even if there are plenty of options in the firewire world, why cut off the USB 2 ones? and don't start with that "you can buy more hardware to add it. that's a) not always the case and b) not part of apple philosophy IMO. I certainly bought this powerbook i have in large part so i wouldn't need to go out and buy a bulging wireless card, or any wireless card for that matter, or an ethernet card, or any other extra stuff. apple, when compared with the PC world. is really vain about its hardware, and looking at steve showing me the new powerbooks really demonstrated why this is so. I've heard people complain about how there are no official docking stations for powerbooks... after 2 months, i ask, why? this has been the most pleasant computing experience i have ever had, just setting it on my lap and working hours and hours and hours on it. docking station? that's for oil-tanker PC laptops. when we buy computers, they should be self-sufficient to at least a very large extent. don't diss USB 2!

about that comment on Apple vs. Intel and FW vs. USB. sure, intel may be doing FW now, developing for it and what not. SO WHAT? that doesn't mean that APPLE isn't being vain about its own FW and avoiding what it may/may not see as potential competition in USB 2. there are a lot of issues raised by USB 2, and they could all be quelled by adding it to new computers. hell, we have bluetooth on the new PBs. it's coming, and it's not nearly as "in" as USB 2. grrr this issue is psychotic.

the point is, can't we all admit that, no, many of us are never going to use USB 2, just as many of us are never going to use FW. shoot, some of us just use word and the internet, not using any peripherals of any type. and they have to pay for an apple computer that tailors to you folks that use FW--that costs them a lot more money, trust me. can't you spare a little for the plenty of people (but not you, of course) who will use USB 2? they're out there.

Rocketman

Jan 13, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by alset
I don't see Apple including a technology that directly competes with it's Firewire tech any time soon. I figure USB 2 will only hit Macs if/when Firewire 800 proves to be less than sufficient.

Dan

I agree Apple is trying to kill USB by desupporting USB 2.0 and early-supporting FW400 and FW800.

However with the 3% market share they have it is truly futile. The massive legions of PC lemmings adopt USB2.0 because they have it but not firewire for the most part.

It would be in Apple's interest now that they have exploited 100% of their limited market power to TRY and FAIL to kill USB, to adopt it.

Why?

Simply because tons of third party USB 2.0 devices now exist that will never have FW simply because they have already been released.

Apple should have a massive program to encourage vendors and third party developers to write drivers for all that existing equipment. In fact they should give a 5% discount on a new Apple computer coupon with every free download of such a driver.

USB 2 is a fact of life Apple needs to catch up on. FW is a fact of life wintel needs to catch up on.

Rocketman

Rocketman

Jan 13, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by yosoyjay

I've noticed the same thing with this thing called Firewire on Macs. I've seen a few people use it, but it seems more like they "happen to have it, just in case you need it", and most devices I've seen don't use it.

I use FW for my CD writer, and thank god.

I wish I had a FW scanner that fully used the speed.

I see FW as mandatory for DV input and a good compopsite to FW converter ought to bring in full resolution video when/if available.

Rocketman

Telomar

Jan 13, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Sputnik Group
fact: we still can't run a new USB 2.0 printer on a new mac.That's blatantly false. USB 2.0 printers can use the current USB ports. I am running one exactly like that.

Bregalad

Jan 13, 2003, 06:15 PM

Flatbed scanners would appear to be the biggest market for USB 2.0 on Macs. Even an ancient 300dpi scanner processes data faster than the SCSI bus can send it to the computer. With USB 1.1 running at only a quarter the speed of SCSI, using a 1200dpi USB scanner must be like watching paint dry.

Sadly there's no such thing as a consumer scanner with a FireWire interface.

Once FireWire 800 is established on all Mac models I think you'll see USB 2.0 replace USB 1.1.

Who uses FireWire? Lots of us. Many iMac and PowerMac models shipped with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives. Since you can't use Apple's DVD Player with an external drive, anyone wanting to burn CDs without giving up their DVD player has to get an external drive. Many iBook and PowerBook owners don't want the hassle and expense of replacing their internal drives so they too get external burners.

I have an external CD-RW, hard drive and one of those pocket size HDs. That means not only have I used both FireWire ports on my Mac, but I've invested in a FireWire hub so I can avoid crawling under the desk to plug/un-plug devices.

I've started seeing FireWire on a lot of PC motherboards (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc.) and there are several cases available now with USB and FireWire ports on the front. Both are good signs.

shadowfax

Jan 13, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Bregalad
Flatbed scanners would appear to be the biggest market for USB 2.0 on Macs. Even an ancient 300dpi scanner processes data faster than the SCSI bus can send it to the computer. With USB 1.1 running at only a quarter the speed of SCSI, using a 1200dpi USB scanner must be like watching paint dry.

isn't USB 1.1 about as fast as broadband internet? that's nowhere near as fast as SCSI, which is generally faster than ATA 100 if i am not way off. that's at least 100 times faster (the bus, that is)....

zarathustra

Jan 13, 2003, 06:50 PM

{edit}Please, if you have the hardware knowledge to explain bits/bytes, see my apology a few posts down.{/edit}

{if 1 byte=32 bits????}

USB 1.1 = 11 megabits/second = 0.3 megabytes/second

firewire400 = 11.9 megabytes/second

USB 2.0 = 480 megabits/second = 14.3 megabytes/second

firewire800 = 800 megabits/second = 23.8 megabytes/second

An IBM/Hitachi Deskstar 180 GXP 7200 rpm drive has : 699 megabits/second rating on the media transfer rate and a sustained data transfer rate of 56 to 29 megabytes/second.

Broadband internet "can" reach 1.5 megabits/second. As mentioned before, the USB protocol requires the assistance of the CPU, like a parallel (I think) device used to. FireWire is essentialy, in simplistic terms hot pluggable SCSI. It can function without a CPU, because the protocol allows items that are daisychained to each other to be recognized (what they do, how they do it), and just start working. I can see a firmware update for the iPod, where you can plug it into a CD burner, and burn without a computer. AFAIK, there is no way of plugging two USB devices together and let them communicate without a host.

zarathustra

Jan 13, 2003, 07:01 PM

*pants*

DarkNovaMatter

Jan 13, 2003, 07:12 PM

Well even though I hope for USB2 soon, I can see Apple's reasons for holding back- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
Basically USB 2.0 is just an "extension" of 1.1. Apple would have to do silicon for each port for this to even work normally or at somewhere near the speeds Intel claims. Its sort of sad when only one device can utilize the bus, and even with the trick for more then one ISB 2.0 isn't so great. Remember the keyword with USB 2.0 is shared bandwidth, shared bandwidth. I think Apple is waiting till they can come up with a way to add all this new circutry needed for it to be half-way decent. You think Intel could of done a better job at making USB 2.0?

shadowfax

Jan 13, 2003, 07:20 PM

MacKid

Jan 13, 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by gotohamish

I see people's point about it competing with FireWire400, but I also fully agree with what you're saying. I recently went looking for compuiters with my cousin (he want's a PC), but I was plugging the Mac, and the lack of USB2 was an issue, even though I said I doubt there's a peripheral he'll ever need with USB2 (as all the machines's specs we looked at has DVD, CDRW etc), and he only want to use Word and email/web.

He also said he didn't like the idea of no two button mouse and a new OS, then he tried a demo PC, and said "What's this? Is this XP? It's like learning a new language."

My point exactly I said, If you're going to learn a new OS, learn a) a better one, and b) something away from work, to get away from it all!

I think you're right. It's been said so many times before, but 90% of the world is not educated in why the Mac hardware is superior, even though it appears to be slower/less capable. Many people have a problem with the fact that the bus/MHz, etc. are seemingly so much slower, and it's hard to explain that not a whole lot of USB 2.0 peripherals aren't easily substitutable with USB 1.1 devices, just like some people don't understand that the Mac is so intuitive that you don't have to "learn" to use a new OS, and that there truly is no need for a two-button mouse.

zarathustra

Jan 13, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax

i was under the impression that a byte was 8 bits, which is why on a 56 Kbitsps modem, you top out at ~6-7KBytesps, and on my 1.19 Mbps (average) DSL modem, my DLs top out at about 150 KBps....

I am not a hardware guy, that's why I put the 1 byte=32 bit disclamier in. I was under the wrong assumption that a 32 bit system will transfer data in 32 bit chunks. My bad.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by zarathustra
{if 1 byte=32 bits}

USB 1.1 = 11 megabits/second = 0.3 megabytes/second

firewire400 = 11.9 megabytes/second

USB 2.0 = 480 megabits/second = 14.3 megabytes/second

firewire800 = 800 megabits/second = 23.8 megabytes/second

An IBM/Hitachi Deskstar 180 GXP 7200 rpm drive has : 699 megabits/second rating on the media transfer rate and a sustained data transfer rate of 56 to 29 megabytes/second.

Broadband internet "can" reach 1.5 megabits/second. As mentioned before, the USB protocol requires the assistance of the CPU, like a parallel (I think) device used to. FireWire is essentialy, in simplistic terms hot pluggable SCSI. It can function without a CPU, because the protocol allows items that are daisychained to each other to be recognized (what they do, how they do it), and just start working. I can see a firmware update for the iPod, where you can plug it into a CD burner, and burn without a computer. AFAIK, there is no way of plugging two USB devices together and let them communicate without a host.

8 bits is 1 byte. The correct numbers:

USB 1.1: 1.25 MB/sec
USB 2.0: 60 MB/sec
FW400: 50 MB/sec
FW800: 100 MB/sec

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings? Hell, how would you even get a chance to see if it scanned right? Firewire is appropriate for some devices, but others that can go either way, there's no reason to not use USB. Processors are beyond a point where USB loads them significantly. Scanners, digital cameras, human input devices (mice, tablets, keyboards), these all are perfectly fine under USB. Camcorders, Hard Drives (marginally CD Burners, now that USB 2.0 is well beyond the bandwidth needed for them a USB variant is not so bad), and high end sound devices are the primary target of firewire.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by zarathustra

I am not a hardware guy, that's why I put the 1 byte=32 bit disclamier in. I was under the wrong assumption that a 32 bit system will transfer data in 32 bit chunks. My bad.

They do, but that has nothing to do with bits and bytes. A 32 bit system does transfer things in 32 bit quantities, but that works out to be 4 bytes worth. The full terminology is:

Bit (1 bit)
Nibble (4 bits)
Byte (8 bits)
Half Word (16 bits)
Word (32 bits)

(note that the last two will change most likely when the 64 bit processors come around. A word is generally accepted to be the amount of data transferred, so in a 32 bit CPU it's 32 bits, in a 64 bit CPU it's 64 bits, etc.)

MacKid

Jan 13, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by gotohamish
Hi,

i needed 4 more USB ports in my PowerMac, and didn't want a hub, and the only card I could find was a USB2 one, figuring I don't care if the 2.0 bit doesn't work, as long as the 1.1 does, I bought it - and it doesn't even recognise 1.1 devices. Any ideas people - I need help!! I thought 2.0 was supported in Jaguar.

This may seem kind of stupid to suggest, and I'm probably wrong, and sorry for stating the obvious, and asking such a weird question but. . .

Why would 2.0 be supported in Jaguar if no Mac comes with it? Sure you can add things like that but why would you need it except for scanners and HD's? I thought that was what FireWire and USB 1.1 were for. . . :confused: :(

zarathustra

Jan 13, 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by locovaca

8 bits is 1 byte. The correct numbers:

USB 1.1: 1.25 MB/sec
USB 2.0: 60 MB/sec
FW400: 50 MB/sec
FW800: 100 MB/sec

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings? Hell, how would you even get a chance to see if it scanned right? Firewire is appropriate for some devices, but others that can go either way, there's no reason to not use USB.

Thanks for the correct info. ;)

You missed my point about daisychaining devices. In USB you have to plug into acentral device, with FW you can connect one into another, into another, etc. up to 70-some times. *BUT* if there is relevance for these devices to communicate, they can. There are Audio devices from Panasonic that use FireWire, and instead of having a gagillion (official number, BTW) RCA, and optical cables, you have a FW cable go from the DVD to the Amp, to the DAT, and so on. Without a computer.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by DarkNovaMatter
Well even though I hope for USB2 soon, I can see Apple's reasons for holding back- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
Basically USB 2.0 is just an "extension" of 1.1. Apple would have to do silicon for each port for this to even work normally or at somewhere near the speeds Intel claims. Its sort of sad when only one device can utilize the bus, and even with the trick for more then one ISB 2.0 isn't so great. Remember the keyword with USB 2.0 is shared bandwidth, shared bandwidth. I think Apple is waiting till they can come up with a way to add all this new circutry needed for it to be half-way decent. You think Intel could of done a better job at making USB 2.0?

IDE is shared bandwidth (a master and a slave). PCI is shared bandwidth. Ethernet with hubs (not switches) is shared bandwidth. Dual G4s share the FSB bandwidth.

USB is not in competition with Firewire!!!! It was made to be cheap! Nor is the task of integrating it as hard as you make it sound- every PC chipset manufacturer, from Intel to Via to SIS to NVidia, has USB 2 on all of their current products. Via has 6 available ports and 3 controllers integrated into their chip, so if you wanted to be a prick about it you could say that they have 1440 MB of bandwidth available. No, it is not hard to do it.

locovaca

Jan 13, 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by zarathustra

Thanks for the correct info. ;)

You missed my point about daisychaining devices. In USB you have to plug into acentral device, with FW you can connect one into another, into another, etc. up to 70-some times. *BUT* if there is relevance for these devices to communicate, they can. There are Audio devices from Panasonic that use FireWire, and instead of having a gagillion (official number, BTW) RCA, and optical cables, you have a FW cable go from the DVD to the Amp, to the DAT, and so on. Without a computer.

And that is a very appropriate application, and fits in with the example of "high end sound systems" that I said in my post (which didn't make it into your quote). Everyone is in a gigantic uproar that these two technologies are out to get each other, and they are not. They have different applications. Do you think that IDE companies were screaming at the top of their lungs with U320 SCSI came out? No! They both have their own niches. USB has long needed a bandwidth upgrade since companies started making 10/100 NICs for USB. It is a cheap consumer technology that, like all technologies, needs to grow as the industry demands it.

(Here is another good read) (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=io_comparison)

Bregalad

Jan 13, 2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
isn't USB 1.1 about as fast as broadband internet? that's nowhere near as fast as SCSI, which is generally faster than ATA 100 if i am not way off. that's at least 100 times faster (the bus, that is)....

Original SCSI only provided 40Mb/s maximum speed for asynchronous transfers. That's the interface you'll find on 5 year old, 300dpi scanners. USB 1.1 has a theoretical maximum speed of only 12Mb/s so it takes even longer for a modern scanner to send data to the host computer.

Over time new forms of SCSI have appeared that run much faster than the original version that first appeared on Macs in 1986. Your comparison to ATA is probably based on modern forms like Ultra160 and Ultra320 SCSI that are often used in servers.

Most DSL tops out at 1.5Mb/s (1500kb/s) downstream, well under the speed of USB 1.1 or 10BaseT Ethernet. Cable internet providers often provide higher bandwidth because a single loop is frequently shared by dozens of subscribers. For example, dslreports.com gives my current download speed from linkLINE as 1658kb/s. Late one night when fewer of my neighbours were online I achieved 3357kb/s from the same server.

nuckinfutz

Jan 13, 2003, 11:01 PM

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings?

Dude you almost sound like you're making sense. Fireire allows up to 63 Devices chained together. Each device that is either added or deleted from the chain cause the rest of the devices to Automatically update their ID. There is basically NO reason not to Daisychain Firewire devices unless you have power or logistical reasons

IDE is shared bandwidth (a master and a slave). PCI is shared bandwidth. Ethernet with hubs (not switches) is shared bandwidth. Dual G4s share the FSB bandwidth.

Of course most Busses are shared. Shared busses have gotten us through the 90's but notice that the trend is now going back to Serial connections ie Serial ATA/SCSI Firewire is Serial as well. They are superior in many ways to current Bus Topologies.

USB is not in competition with Firewire!!!!

Yes they are competitors. Both connect external periphery. Compete they do.

USB is a decent if not dumb connection. Funny how people are writing about how to describe why Macs don't have USB2. It's easy my friends...extol the virtues of Firewire and you won't have to hang your head.

Look at what Yamaha is doing with mLAN in the music arena. Multiple Channels of Midi, Audio and Synchronization over a thin little cable linking multiple devices...that's cool.

Firewire

1. Support much more power than USB. You can barely run a floppy drive on USB power.

2. Supports Asynchronous/Isynchronous Connections. Multiple Speeds over the same wire at the same time. Guaranteed connections when needed.

3. Auto ID. Pull a device out and the chain renumbers.

4. Hostless communication. No need for a computer.

5. IP...networking. Unibrain and Apple and Microsoft all can do it.

6. Serial technology= better suited to longer cable runs. Optical cables coming. 100Meter maximum length. USB need not apply.

7. Speed...the Firewire spec goes to 3200Mbps.

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire. Did you buy your Apple to have crappy connectivity for crappy peripherals or did you buy The Best ...to run the best. You decide.

jasonbw

Jan 14, 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by jasonbw
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bear

If you don't believe me, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 (and other low end Canon scanners.
I just bought one last week, and it is slow on my 867 mdd. on the other hand, my epson 1200u at work is easily faster on usb 1.1

the sad thing is, if i just plugged the damn thing into my dell w/usb2 at home, i could tell you if it made a difference. i'll get back to you.

interesting results...MacUsb1.1..it takes about 20 sec to do a full preview. 65 seconds to scan a 6" x 4" 600 dpi plot on the top of the scan area...and 60 more seconds to finish sending the scan info to photoshop.

I installed a siig usb 2.0 card on the mac...it took the same amount of time.

installed it on the dell machine ....20 min...to install the damn thing. drivers did not want to take.

once installed: 20sec preview...60 second to scan completely.

so it appears that usb2 runs twice as fast on a pc, and doesn't really even work on the mac/siig card combo.

So, i decided to try one more test. usb 1.1 on a different system. 3 year old celeron 500.

20 sec preview...45 second scan.

its one test, so its real bad statistics, but the early conclusion is that in this case, with the same target size, is that usb 1.1 on a pc is faster than 2.0 on a pc and 1.1/2 on a mac.

locovaca

Jan 14, 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

Dude you almost sound like you're making sense. Fireire allows up to 63 Devices chained together. Each device that is either added or deleted from the chain cause the rest of the devices to Automatically update their ID. There is basically NO reason not to Daisychain Firewire devices unless you have power or logistical reasons

That's not what I meant. What I meant by this example was the settings for what was being scanned (what resolution, what actual area to scan, etc.)

Of course most Busses are shared. Shared busses have gotten us through the 90's but notice that the trend is now going back to Serial connections ie Serial ATA/SCSI Firewire is Serial as well. They are superior in many ways to current Bus Topologies.
[quote][b]

Serial communications is a quick fix because it's hard to get so many parallel signals to stay in sync and to not crosstalk. The P4 is essentially a "serial" processor- it breaks up the information into very small chunks and processes them as fast as it can. That's what serial is. Serial is not always better.

[b][quote]
Yes they are competitors. Both connect external periphery. Compete they do.

They are designed for different devices. You don't drive a moped onto an interstate, even though many can do the "minimum" interstate speed.

USB is a decent if not dumb connection. Funny how people are writing about how to describe why Macs don't have USB2. It's easy my friends...extol the virtues of Firewire and you won't have to hang your head.

Extol the virtues. It is a great technology. I have a DV Camera and a Firewire Burner. That doesn't mean that USB2 is a bad technology. As hard to swallow as it is in a "Us vs. Them" world, but there is such a thing as co-existance.

Look at what Yamaha is doing with mLAN in the music arena. Multiple Channels of Midi, Audio and Synchronization over a thin little cable linking multiple devices...that's cool.

Great. I've already said that this is a beneficial and applicable use of Firewire. There are many times where Firewire, not USB, is the preferred technology. There are also many other times when it is silly to have Firewire because it would be an overkill. Digital Still Cameras, Scanners, Mice, Keyboards, 10/100 Network Cards, 802.11b or g, printers- these are all underneath Firewire's bandwidth limitation and also do not have a need to be independent from a computer.

Firewire

1. Support much more power than USB. You can barely run a floppy drive on USB power.

*Shrug*. I don't have a problem with this. All of my USB periphrials (keyboard, mouse, webcam, digital camera, pda) do just fine off of USB power. My camera uses its own batteries, but it doesn't bother me any- it never stays on for more than a few minutes. But hey, if having a power supply for a scanner is a problem, get the firewire version.

2. Supports Asynchronous/Isynchronous Connections. Multiple Speeds over the same wire at the same time. Guaranteed connections when needed.

Again, that's because this is what Firewire was designed for! USB wasn't designed for digital video! It was designed as a cheap consumer connection. You're taking the applications of Firewire and trying to apply them to USB, which makes no sense because USB wasn't designed for those in the first place.

3. Auto ID. Pull a device out and the chain renumbers.

I don't see how this is a problem with USB. Pull out a mouse and everything still works. Plug it back in and X has no problem finding the mouse again.

4. Hostless communication. No need for a computer.

Again, this is an application that Firewire, not USB, was designed for. You're trying to take the square piece of wood and fit it through the circular hole.

5. IP...networking. Unibrain and Apple and Microsoft all can do it.

Great. Go for it. Not what USB was designed to do.

6. Serial technology= better suited to longer cable runs. Optical cables coming. 100Meter maximum length. USB need not apply.

I don't want my mouse to be 100m away from my computer. I want it to have the minimal amount of cable to not clutter up my desk but yet still be mobile. 5 meters is enough distance to get my scanner, printer, etc. far enough away to make my desk useable. I don't understand how this is a problem. Nobody has a USB device that would necessitate those kinds of distances away from the computer.

7. Speed...the Firewire spec goes to 3200Mbps.

USB was not built for speed. It was built for simplicity. A bunch of "dumb" devices plug into a computer which controls them. Firewire is made for high bandwidth devices, many of which may operate independently from a computer. USB2 came about because some devices needed more bandwidth. It is a natural progression of technology.

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

A standard which isn't even stadardized. Personally, I find this more of a problem than a benefit, because I find copy protection crap to be invasive and too controlling. DRM, Palladium,
companies crashing computers with audio cds (http://www.collusion.org/Article.cfm?ID=398)

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire. Did you buy your Apple to have crappy connectivity for crappy peripherals or did you buy The Best ...to run the best. You decide.

<sarcasm>You're right. Damn apple for forcing us to USB. We've paid a horrible price.</sarcasm>
I don't care why firewire devices cost more. It is a non-issue to me. Firewire was made for devices that are typically more expensive- IE stereo systems, Digital Vid Cams, etc. When you get up that far firewire is just a drop in the ocean.

Your arguements consisted of taking the applications of firewire and trying to apply them to USB. That's exactly why there are two different technologies- because one cannot encompass all the benefits! Firewire is not a perfect technology. USB is not a perfect technology. Together they can solve the needs of 99% of users.

shadowfax

Jan 14, 2003, 02:01 AM

thanks for all the clarification, locovaca.

seriously.

kenohki

Jan 14, 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire.

I think that the use of FireWire in consumer devices (as you've pointed out above) will help to drive it's adoption as a widespread standard. The consumer electronics industry has pretty much standardized consumer HD content transfers (especially between things like HD TiVo, HD set top boxes, and HD DVD or D-VHS) on 1394 with 5C or DVI with HDCP (and DVI mainly for transmitting the encrypted HD bitstream into the display device).

Because FireWire is emerging as this sort of digital device standard, I would go so far as to predict that FireWire will supplant even USB in usage. There's really only gonna be one winner here folks. You can't argue that USB 2.0 doesn't compete with FireWire. This isn't IDE vs. SCSI. It isn't SCSI vs. Fibre Channel. The people that are saying that FireWire is fine and dandy for high end use and USB is good for low end use need to do some research and see what's going on with this stuff outside the computer arena. One open standard for devices is going to make everyone's life easier.

Afterthought - Think FireWire as the digital equivilant of RCA video cables or audio patch cords.

h'biki

Jan 14, 2003, 11:10 AM

Its a non issue. Yet its been reappearing since USB 2 was annoucned. USB 2 is in INDIRECT competition with Firewire. Devices like scanners suit USB2. Its a low cost consumer interface.

Canon is now shipping scanners ONLY in USB2 configurations. Its an issue of inventory. Why should they manufacture two models of the same scanner and keep BOTH in stock, when the larger portion of their target market is going to be using USB2 over Firewire (Firewire is still not default on many PCs).

Thats why I want USB2 on my mac. I don't want to suddenly be kept out of the peripheral market again. I went through that with my SE and Centris.

That said, USB2 isn't going to replace Firewire. I don't think Digidesign is going to ship a USB2 version of the Digi 002 for instance. Nor is Yamaha going to re-engineer mLAN for USB2. Too many controller issues. Furthermore, Panasonic is going to be putting Firewire2 on its DVCPro decks (25, 50 and HD I believe) which can be controlled by FCP4 *OR* another Firewire device. Professional photographers will still want firewire on their digital cameras so they can go straight to hard drive. There will still be high-speed hard drives with firewire interfaces for these reasons.

Its a non issue in terms of competition. Firewire will lose some markets (scanners, printers, CDRWs etc) to USB2 but thats ok, Firewire 2 is GAINING markets in the audiovisual field.

Consequently, most PCs will ship with USB2 and not FW or FW2. So Apple needs to ship USB2 OR some peripheral maker needs to create USB2->FireWire1/2 interfaces.

It needs to happen at some point, but I think Apple is seeing how the market goes. You never know. People may buy firewire hard drives over USB2 hard drives - the FW market has been existence longer after all. Obviously, its in their interest and the interest of mac users for Apple too try and 'stave off' USB2 for a while so we don't loose access to peripherals.

locovaca

Jan 14, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by kenohki

Because FireWire is emerging as this sort of digital device standard, I would go so far as to predict that FireWire will supplant even USB in usage. There's really only gonna be one winner here folks. You can't argue that USB 2.0 doesn't compete with FireWire. This isn't IDE vs. SCSI. It isn't SCSI vs. Fibre Channel. The people that are saying that FireWire is fine and dandy for high end use and USB is good for low end use need to do some research and see what's going on with this stuff outside the computer arena. One open standard for devices is going to make everyone's life easier.

One open standard does not necessarily make thing easier. Firewire was not made to support many of the low end market devices that USB supports. USB was not made to support many of the high end market devices that Firewire supports. Look at the DMCA- one law trying to support two or three separate industries. Look at PCI- one bus doesn't cover the needs of every device (which is why we have AGP, Firewire, etc.). Firewire is not a perfect technology. There is no perfect technology (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=io_comparison)

kenohki

Jan 14, 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by locovaca

One open standard does not necessarily make thing easier. Firewire was not made to support many of the low end market devices that USB supports. USB was not made to support many of the high end market devices that Firewire supports. Look at the DMCA- one law trying to support two or three separate industries. Look at PCI- one bus doesn't cover the needs of every device (which is why we have AGP, Firewire, etc.). Firewire is not a perfect technology. There is no perfect technology (http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/markeditorial.html?prodkey=io_comparison)

You've made my case for me. Why boost USB to the 2.0 spec to try and make it compete with FireWire speeds when FireWire already handles high speed transfers like this with a much better feature set?

phillymjs

Jan 14, 2003, 01:16 PM

If you MUST have USB 2.0 in your G4, buy a PCI card for it. I remember reading a while back that Mac OS X has built-in USB 2.0 support, and a few minutes of googling seems to confirm this.

Having said that, USB 2.0 is not really needed when you have FireWire, which is superior (especially now that FireWire 800 is a shipping product). In fact, USB 2.0 was just Intel's "me too" attempt at FireWire-- that's the only reason it exists, to say, "Look, we have a fast comm bus just like Apple's!"

Only it's not "just like Apple's":
-FireWire is peer-to-peer so the devices can take care of themselves. USB requires a computer to control/manage the devices. That's Intel, giving you the razor (USB) so they can sell you the blades (CPUs).

-FireWire can do things like charge your iPod while transferring data to it, and you can usually daisy-chain the devices together without a hub. USB needs a rat's nest of AC adapters and cables and hubs, or the computer will start bitching about insufficient power on the bus for all the connected devices.

-USB 2 may have a higher top speed (480Mbps) than FireWire 400, but tests have borne out time and time again that FireWire can sustain data transfers close to its peak speed, where USB2 data transfers only spike that high occasionally.

-FireWire has different physical connectors for its 400Mbps and 800Mbps buses, so you know at a glance what you're dealing with-- most decent manufacturers of FireWire 800 devices will probably include the adapter in the box so they can be used on older machines. USB uses the same connectors for both versions, so there's a high probability you'll hook up your USB 2.0 peripherals in a 1.x USB port or otherwise screw things up so the USB 2 peripherals step down to USB 1.x speeds.

~Philly

nuckinfutz

Jan 14, 2003, 01:20 PM

Lococava and kenohki great job!

Check this out! FW800 has some definite advantages

http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html (Firewire 800 Kicks Arse!)

I guess I'm just a not a fan of USB2. I don't give a damn about Canons needs If I'm spending money I want "MY" preferred connection standard or I'll move on to another brand. Scanners don't push enough data at the consumer level to even max out USB2.

The fear is that once Apple supports USB2 then they've effectively removed any benefit of using Firewire as the Developer will simply make USB2 peripherals to run on both platforms...Firewire goes bye bye.

<sigh> It seems History is due to repeat itself however. Humans always gravitate to the cheaper technology depite obvious superiority. VHS/Beta here we come. Have we learned anything?

locovaca

Jan 14, 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Lococava and kenohki great job!

Check this out! FW800 has some definite advantages

http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html (Firewire 800 Kicks Arse!)

I guess I'm just a not a fan of USB2. I don't give a damn about Canons needs If I'm spending money I want "MY" preferred connection standard or I'll move on to another brand. Scanners don't push enough data at the consumer level to even max out USB2.

The fear is that once Apple supports USB2 then they've effectively removed any benefit of using Firewire as the Developer will simply make USB2 peripherals to run on both platforms...Firewire goes bye bye.

<sigh> It seems History is due to repeat itself however. Humans always gravitate to the cheaper technology depite obvious superiority. VHS/Beta here we come. Have we learned anything?

Well, it feels like to me that we are agreeing on the same issues but then just disagreeing over the interpretation of those. FW is a better technology. It is more intelligent, it supports greater speeds. That doesn't mean it's made for everyone or everything.

Just because we have airplanes doesn't mean everytime you want to travel from Tampa Bay to Orlando you should take a plane because it goes at 500 MPH and a car only at 70 (not factoring in costs into the analogy). People are not avoiding FW and choosing USB 1/2 because they hate FW or because USB is a technically better technology. It's because the benefits of FW mean very little to nothing to USB devices. While I do not endorse Intel, I do not think they made USB2 to go and steal FW's thunder. Ever since the dawn of external 8x burners, faster scanners with higher resolutions, multi-mega pixel digital cameras with microdrives, and 10/100 USB nics people have wanted USB to be faster. These are all devices that make little sense to make Firewire versions for because they simply wouldn't use the benefits of firewire- dedicated bandwidth, computer independent use, etc.

kenohki

Jan 14, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by locovaca

Well, it feels like to me that we are agreeing on the same issues but then just disagreeing over the interpretation of those. FW is a better technology. It is more intelligent, it supports greater speeds. That doesn't mean it's made for everyone or everything.

Just because we have airplanes doesn't mean everytime you want to travel from Tampa Bay to Orlando you should take a plane because it goes at 500 MPH and a car only at 70 (not factoring in costs into the analogy). People are not avoiding FW and choosing USB 1/2 because they hate FW or because USB is a technically better technology. It's because the benefits of FW mean very little to nothing to USB devices.

Agreed!

While I do not endorse Intel, I do not think they made USB2 to go and steal FW's thunder. Ever since the dawn of external 8x burners, faster scanners with higher resolutions, multi-mega pixel digital cameras with microdrives, and 10/100 USB nics people have wanted USB to be faster. These are all devices that make little sense to make Firewire versions for because they simply wouldn't use the benefits of firewire- dedicated bandwidth, computer independent use, etc.

I do disagre with the part about Intel. They're working on a new version of USB that's high speed and peer to peer based. Seems like they want control of the high end and the low end. They're just hoping they can buy enough time to get it out before FireWire takes hold. Also take into account the fact that Intel's 1394 support is about as lukewarm as Apple's USB 2.0 support.

However...

What I'm hoping for here is that the IP networking aspects of FireWire, in concert with Rondezvous/ZeroConf (and 802.11g, though it's not related directly to this thread), will allow the connection of digital devices to each other to do all sorts of neat things that we probably haven't even considered yet.

Imagine your iPod hooked up to your home receiver and not just being able to play the iPod through the stereo but having the receiver discover what services (music) the iPod offers and then being able to offer it's library to you (catalogued of course) through the receiver's interface and remote. (Can I get a car stereo version too?)

Or taking pictures with your digital camera and then being able to preview them directly on your 1394 equiped HDTV. While digital picture frames in your house could discover that your camera offers photos as a service and automatically subscribe to the camera's photo album over 802.11g/Bluetooth/FireWire/whatever.

Those are the types of things that I'm sure make Bill Gates, with his SPOT rhetoric (read: a more friendly way to preach the old "Windows on everything" mantra), wet his pants. But they're the types of things that I think Apple can execute on. It really goes back to the original vision of the Macintosh as more of an appliance than a computer. Yes it can be a digital hub and yes it can run MS Office. But there are times when it will get in the way of a simple and elegant solution to a problem. This is where I think the positioning of the computer as a peer will be a benefit.

-K

hmmm, did I get off on a tangent or what?

jasonbw

Jan 14, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by h'biki

Canon is now shipping scanners ONLY in USB2 configurations. Its an issue of inventory. Why should they manufacture two models of the same scanner and keep BOTH in stock, when the larger portion of their target market is going to be using USB2 over Firewire (Firewire is still not default on many PCs).

which doesnt seem to matter...usb2 is compatible with usb 1.1...its just slower...kinda.

Thats why I want USB2 on my mac. I don't want to suddenly be kept out of the peripheral market again. I went through that with my SE and Centris.

Well, not sure how good a card it is, but i just bought this siig usb 2 card at compusa for $20. 5 ports (well, 4 usable ports and one internal port ) and if nothing else it does run usb devices at least as well as the built in ports do.

locovaca

Jan 14, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by kenohki

I do disagre with the part about Intel. They're working on a new version of USB that's high speed and peer to peer based. Seems like they want control of the high end and the low end. They're just hoping they can buy enough time to get it out before FireWire takes hold. Also take into account the fact that Intel's 1394 support is about as lukewarm as Apple's USB 2.0 support.

Well, fortunately, Intel doesn't quite control the entire market, although their support would help the cause. If you remember a couple of years ago Microsoft said they wouldn't support USB 2 but rather 1394. But it is a folly that you can't find 1394 on the low end of the PC spectrum. But even companies like Creative Labs are integrating 1394 onto their sound cards. And on AMD's end NVidia has 1394 built into their new chipsets. It's a small, pathetic effort, but still is an effort. Considering how long it took to get USB2 built into motherboards from the time it was announced, FW800 might not be an immediate thing. But, the more cool devices and uses of FW that come out (such as the stereos) it should help spur its spread. Remember that anyone who buys a digital video cam will most likely get a MiniDV or Digital8 and will either purchase a PC/Mac with firewire built in or else add it in. Anyway, my point is Intel doesn't like 1394, but Intel no longer represents the entire PC industry anymore.

dblissmn

Jan 14, 2003, 09:39 PM

Unfortunately Apple doesn't have enough market share to control the market -- just enough to lead it. Sales drones push USB 2.0 as being the new and improved version of a popular standard; now that OS X supports it and now that OS 9 booting is finished there is simply no good reason for the Mac not to include it. Instead of boosting Firewire, they are shooting themselves in the foot by skipping it.

What's even more inexplicable is that we do not see any marketing or even any information being fed to hacks at computer magazines about Firewire; these hacks then go and print stories about how USB is faster than Firewire, which they back up by testing the latest USB 2 product with inferior closeout Firewire products. None of them have ever heard of Oxford 911 and Oxford 922; 911, which is the Firewire 400 version, blows every USB 2 solution right out of the water, but most people whose job it is to know about these things don't know them. And there are very few real journalists out there in the computer trade press (the kind who take the trouble to compare apples to apples), which is why I am calling most of them hacks.

locovaca

Jan 15, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by dblissmn
Unfortunately Apple doesn't have enough market share to control the market -- just enough to lead it. Sales drones push USB 2.0 as being the new and improved version of a popular standard; now that OS X supports it and now that OS 9 booting is finished there is simply no good reason for the Mac not to include it. Instead of boosting Firewire, they are shooting themselves in the foot by skipping it.

What's even more inexplicable is that we do not see any marketing or even any information being fed to hacks at computer magazines about Firewire; these hacks then go and print stories about how USB is faster than Firewire, which they back up by testing the latest USB 2 product with inferior closeout Firewire products. None of them have ever heard of Oxford 911 and Oxford 922; 911, which is the Firewire 400 version, blows every USB 2 solution right out of the water, but most people whose job it is to know about these things don't know them. And there are very few real journalists out there in the computer trade press (the kind who take the trouble to compare apples to apples), which is why I am calling most of them hacks.

I agree. I can't stand TechTV at all, nor any kind of magazine that has to deal with computers. I only read websites, and then, only reputable ones like Aces Hardware, not Toms Hardware or Anandtech. What's especially worse is that fewer and fewer websites are becoming trustworthy because they get the hardware free to do a favorable review of- do a negative review and no more freebies.