Firewire 2

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by nicely, May 21, 2002.

  1. nicely macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY - Cobble Hill
    #1
    Okay, we might see firewire 2 at MWNY. If this is the case, when do you think we might see the most popular DV cameras (XL1s, etc.) implementing it? I'm going to buy a Power Mac after the expo, but should I get my camera now or wait?

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #2
    Device time to the public could be either right away or take some time. It all depends on how fast the hardware makers jump onto the technology. Look at how slow USB 2 has been to catch on.

    I would say, if there is a device that catches your eye at the expo, or soon after, then grab it. I would also suggest speaking with as many developers as you can and find out who has devices in the works. If they are showing devices, then try and get them to give you a solid time frame for release.

    I remember seeing the P5 glove at last years MWNY, which was originally supposed to come out last year. As far as I know, it has yet to hit the market.

    Take everything there (except from Apple or large companies) with at least a few grains of salt.
     
  3. Wry Cooter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    #3
    The DV spec isn't really being bottlenecked by firewire one is it?

    I would figure the first things out the door that would on its own be able to take advantage of the added bandwidth might be a RAID of some sort.

    But I think the bandwidth advantages would show up with present day firewire peripherals, by allowing more activity in a daisy chain. As it is now, I have three firewire drives plus my iPod and a webcam... I'm not sure if its the firewire bus itself that is choking, but I can slow the other traffic pretty easily by just cranking up the webcam. Haven't tried running DV through there at the same time.
     
  4. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #4
    Hey Cooter, are you running the devices through a firewire hub, or chaining them??? If you are chaining them, on the same port (you didn't mention which computer they are on), you might want to try using some of them on the second port (if you have one). Otherwise, try using a firewire hub. That way, the devices have a cleaner path to the computer.
     
  5. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #5
    I would at least wait for July. ;) Then, IF they release FireWire2 (which I am a little doubtful of, given the Xserve's specs) I would wait for a FireWire2 DV cam. It may be a long wait, but I think we Mac users have a good grasp of that concept. :p
     
  6. Wry Cooter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    #6
    I usually do use the other port. I keep one port for the iPod and cameras, the other port for the drives. Not terribly interested in another wall wart (hub).

    Sometimes the problems I do see I think are a delay in the system polling the drives, because there are more in the queue. For instance if I pop in a CD it may be a while before iTunes sees it compared to leaving the firewire stuff offline.
     
  7. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    DV has a set data rate of 3.6 megabytes per second. This doesn't even come close to bottlenecking FireWire so I don't see why any DV devices would change to FireWire 2. And I don't see the DV standard changeing anytime soon since it was created to be a "consumer" format, while DigiBeta and HD are the new "pro" formats. I don't even think that HD's or DigiBeta's data rate would max out FireWire... I hope Apple has something useful up it's sleeve otherwise FireWire 2 is gonna look like expensive overkill.


    Lethal
     
  8. Wry Cooter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    #8
    I could imagine perhaps some of the DV camcorders that are saving the info to CD-r rather than tape perhaps allowing a faster transfer rate.

    But I think you might be seeing a bit of a megahertz style race here... USB 2 promises to equal or better Firewire, so Firewire has to improve ITS bandwidth.

    And I'm sure that there will be no problem with people finding ways to take advantage of that bandwidth, somehow.
     
  9. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #9
    Real world results show that USB 2 is slower then FireWire 1. By the time USB 2 is actually as fast as FireWire 1, FireWire 2 will be out and blow it's doors off. USB will always be playing catch-up to FireWire.
     
  10. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #10
    Although it says that USB2 goes at 480Mbps and Firewire (1) goes 400Mbps, the actual performance is much slower with USB2.

    In other words, to demonstrate a relationship of speed, we will represent USB2 as a Ford Escort. For Firewire 2 let's use, say, the Apollo 11. :)

    BTW, a lot of exaggeration... I am sure that Firewire 2 will get minimal complaints once software supports it.
     
  11. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11
    But the Q still remains. What is FireWire 2 gonna be used for? The specs for FW 2 look great, but what is gonna utilize all that bandwidth? Yes, I know I sound like "all yer needs is 512k of RAM" but I'm serious. USB 1.1 obviously needed an upgrade, but has anything maxed out FW 1?



    Lethal
     
  12. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #12
    Storage devices use all the bandwidth that FireWire provides. Things like cd-rw drives, hard drives, scanners, they all benefit from the higher bandwidth. Think of it as things that used to be SCSI because they needed faster transfer rates from the system to the device.

    Imagine an external hard drive that transfers just as fast as the ATA100/133 drive inside your computer.
     
  13. threepod macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    #13
    FW2, what is it good for?

    With all that bandwidth, I'm sure we'll find things to use it.:p

    For a while you'll probably only need one port to handle all your devices. USB 1 clogs with a few devices all using the same channel. What about an end to the plethora of connectors on the back of computers. One connector for video, keyboard, mice, scanners, printers, har drives, you name it.
    Portable computing heaven.
     
  14. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #14
    Re: FW2, what is it good for?

    Only in your dreams. Computers will continue to use ports dedicated for the different interfaces for some time to come. Just think about it for a few minutes (I can hear the gears grinding from here :D). With just one connection, you will be only as fast as the slowest item on the chain. Do you really want that?? I don't. I would much rather have the video out port seperate from the usb, seperate from the firewire (1 or 2), which is seperate from the audio in and out ports. This will epecially be true for desktops where people want to be able to upgrade their video cards, and add other PCI cards to allow for other interfaces/devices to be added.
     
  15. threepod macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    #15
    but a FW2 only system it's a bit of a moot point. I don't mean it would happen this decade.
    (Is my brain really that loud? I just had it serviced!)
     
  16. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Re: Re: FW2, what is it good for?

    Well, the obvious solution to that is to have a port that doesn't slow down to the speed of the slowest device. Perhaps put something in the spec that says it must be able to support the full speed (if daisy chainable). Also, I don't think he was saying we should only have one port, just one type of port. I agree with him completely. Although, taking it a step further, I think everything should be wireless (but only when they figure out how to make induction powered peripherals that don't screw up your computer).
     

Share This Page