Mystery Solved, the G4 Prototype server's odd port is a...

[Mr. Anderson]

Ok, I was looking around the Apple website tonight and I found this. Its close up of the eMac's plug section. The mystery connector on the server board is a video out plug!!! Look at it, its exactly the same.

http://www.apple.com/education/emac/specs.html

[MacAztec]

Why would they put Video Out on a G4 Tower? They also dont look like the same port....IMO

[Mr. Anderson]

Not sure myself, but I thought the positioning and resemblance more than necessitated a post. If you have a rack mounted board, you might from time to time need to attach a monitor. Whats to say this isn't it?

[MacAztec]

Well, the G4s today don't have one, and I don't see why Appe would ever put one on a mobo.

[Mr. Anderson]

Well they did with the eMac, that's my point. And besides, with a prototype, all bets are off when it comes to what should or shouldn't be there. The thing is we may never know what that plug was.

[mymemory]

Wouldn't be easier to:
1. Use a S-VHS output that by the way gives a very good video signal.
2. Use a RCA type conector for composite video that is universal.
3. TO CREATE A DRIVER THAT ALLOWS TO USE FIREWIRE VIDEO OUTPUT FOR ALL APLICATIONS.

If that connetor is a mistery, who am I going to use it?

If there is something that the industry is getting very anoying from the last 20 years is the creation of a different kind of connector evry other day. When all we need is a positive/ negative/ and ground cable.

Why the Firewire and USB can not have the same shape of connector?

[Mr. Anderson]

Well they did with the eMac, that's my point. And besides, with a prototype, all bets are off when it comes to what should or shouldn't be there. The thing is we may never know what that plug was.

[joed]

I have noticed a fair few people saying it could be Firewire 2 port. Which doesn't make sense cause they (Apple) wouldn't be putting Firewire 1 and Firewire 2 ports on the same board, as Firewire 2 is compatible with Firewire 1.

I agree it does look a bit like the Video out connection.

James.

[strider42]

Originally posted by mymemory

Why the Firewire and USB can not have the same shape of connector?

They work completely differently, sp the connectors are different to accomadate the differences between them, and why would you want them to be the same. You'd still need separate ports and you'd just be confused abut whcih is which. Its kind of like asking why isn't my phone jack the same as my power outlets.

[joed]

Originally posted by strider42


They work completely differently, sp the connectors are different to accomadate the differences between them, and why would you want them to be the same. You'd still need separate ports and you'd just be confused abut whcih is which. Its kind of like asking why isn't my phone jack the same as my power outlets.

I have done my research on Firewire 2, and have had a couple of my posts posted on the main page of Macrumors regarding this.

Yes, Firewire 2 (1394b) does use different connectors, but is compatible with Firewire 1, all you need is a special connector to make Firwire 1 products work with the new Firewire 2 port.

Also, there is a session at the WWDC on the future of Firewire so maybe we will be seeing the 1394b standard being implemented sooner rather than later.

Hope this clarifies a few things!


James.

[jelloshotsrule]

detective duke.

that looks like it could be it. will be interesting to see what the next towers bring...

i want rca in back personally... but anyhoo

[3rdpath]

i emailed the "seller" to find out what ports are on it and any other info he wants to part with.

doesn't hurt to try.....stranger things have happened.

:)

[arn]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Ok, I was looking around the Apple website tonight and I found this. Its close up of the eMac's plug section. The mystery connector on the server board is a video out plug!!! Look at it, its exactly the same.

http://www.apple.com/education/emac/specs.html


I still say it's a Firewire 2:

http://www.macrumors.com/images/1394b.gif

[MacAztec]

I agree with you. The port looks like it caves in on top, and that is what a FireWire 2 cable does. VGA Cables are totally flat, kinda like USB.

[palala]

Yes, they did put the video port on the new eMac, but for a good reason. It already has a monitor built in, and thus...no graphic card to connect a monitor to. To have this port on a tower makes no sense. Also, if we are gonna get into the nitty-gritty...why would they turn the port on its side? All the other machines using the video port right now have it vertical (iMac, eMac) with the exception of the iBook, but as you will notice in that case ALL of the ports are horizontal. In my mind it all adds up to this not being a video port.

[cb911]

firewire 2 eh? so we should be seeing it on new Macs pretty soon then?

and on the subject of prototypes, why don't we hear much about other prototypes, like TiBook and iBooks? i guess Apple ususally is pretty security conscious about that sort of stuff.

[joed]

Originally posted by arn



I still say it's a Firewire 2:

http://www.macrumors.com/images/1394b.gif

Arn,

I have attached an image from the 1394b specifications which may help!

[Funkatation]

I guess I'm gonna have to be the one to point this out... in order to have a mini vga output, you must have onboard video as the iMac, eMac, and iBook have. The powermac does not have this, instead, it has the AGP slot. On board video would be a good idea for a rackmount board (most pc server rackmounts use onboard Rage XL chips) but there would not be an existence of an agp slot if that were the case.

[Beej]

I'm still leaning towards FW2, for what it's worth...

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by joed
I have attached an image from the 1394b specifications which may help!

Maybe I'm dense. but I don't see anything in what you've attached that says they use the same connector.

Take a look at the links arn put in the first post of this thread:
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=4520&highlight=1394b

1394b needs a different port in order to achieve higher bandwidth. On a prototype board such as this it makes sense to have both 1394a and b onboard to test functionality and performance.

Backwards compatibility may occur between the device and the port, but not necessarily using the same cable as we use today.

[joed]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Maybe I'm dense. but I don't see anything in what you've attached that says they use the same connector.

Take a look at the links arn put in the first post of this thread:
http://www.macrumors.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=4520&highlight=1394b

1394b needs a different port in order to achieve higher bandwidth. On a prototype board such as this it makes sense to have both 1394a and b onboard to test functionality and performance.

Backwards compatibility may occur between the device and the port, but not necessarily using the same cable as we use today.

I think I'm just confusing myself. :)

The phrase from the image was "This standard (1394b - FW2) is fully interoperable with IEEE 1394a-2000 and IEEE 1394-1995", therefore why would you also include Firewire 1 port. Doesn't seem to make sense! It's like putting USB 1.1 and USB2 ports together on a computer, if you've got USB2 you also have 1.1!

The whole point of having Beta and bilingual modes (refer to Arns graphic, Beta on the left bilingual adaptor on right) is to make Firewire 2 backwards compatible with Firewire 1.

OK, I'm probably flogging a dead horse here but having FW1 and FW2 on the same board does not make sense (Chubaca defence - anyone who watches SouthPark would understand)?

James.

[arn]

Originally posted by joed


OK, I'm probably flogging a dead horse here but having FW1 and FW2 on the same board does not make sense (Chubaca defence - anyone who watches SouthPark would understand)?

James.

You are correct re backward compat of FW2... but I'm going to chalk this up (both FW1 and 2 on the same board) to the old "it's a prototype"-excuse... :)

arn

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by joed
I think I'm just confusing myself. :)

The phrase from the image was "This standard (1394b - FW2) is fully interoperable with IEEE 1394a-2000 and IEEE 1394-1995", therefore why would you also include Firewire 1 port. Doesn't seem to make sense! It's like putting USB 1.1 and USB2 ports together on a computer, if you've got USB2 you also have 1.1!

The whole point of having Beta and bilingual modes (refer to Arns graphic, Beta on the left bilingual adaptor on right) is to make Firewire 2 backwards compatible with Firewire 1.

OK, I'm probably flogging a dead horse here but having FW1 and FW2 on the same board does not make sense (Chubaca defence - anyone who watches SouthPark would understand)?

James.

But on a prototype board it makes perfect sense, since the technology is untested. If it fails, they still have 1394a to back to, rather than being stuck with a malfunctioning 1394b.

[joed]

OK, I'm happy with that answer.

The old "it's a prototype" excuse. lol....


James.

[alex_ant]

It would make more sense if it were FW2 because 1) the connector is right next to the other Firewire ports and 2) it looks similar. IMO, that proprietary monitor connector is too wide to be it. On the eMac, it looks just the slightest bit narrower than the Ethernet port, but on this prototype board, the mystery port looks about 75% as wide as the Ethernet port. Sharp eye anyway though, dukestreet. :)

Alex

[Ensign Paris]

I think there is a large chance of it being Fibre 1000bs-t Ethernet, it looks just like that!

Ensign

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
i emailed the "seller" to find out what ports are on it and any other info he wants to part with.

doesn't hurt to try.....stranger things have happened.

:)

I hope you post it if you get a reply, but my guess is you won't, since Apple shut down the whole sale to begin with.

Its great to get the debate going on something like this. When I saw the eMac ports it just sort of seemed right, especially if the prototype board was used in a rack. If it was in a tower, well then it wouldn't make sense and I'd have to go with FW2.

[mcrain]

Visually, it looks like the Firewire 2 port.

Spacially, it would make sence that it would be located next to the firewire 1 ports.

Timing wise, it makes sence to come out with firewire 2 soon because USB 2.0 is out.

As for number of ports: If they removed all firewire 1 ports and replaced it instead with one firewire 2 port, everyone would complain that they had to buy adapters out the wazoo to run their current peripherals. In addition, there maybe some new digital lifestyle device that is a bandwith hog that just might not like to daisy chain with other devices. For example, a high bandwith "box" may not like having a firewire external HD attached to it (as it might cause a lessening of 'signal')

That's merely my humble opinion.