Firewire vs USB 2.0

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by mac15, Mar 16, 2002.

  1. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #2
    What?

    How does USB suck? USB 2.0 beats the shizz out of USB, and Firewire 2.0 beats Firewire. Can you please clarify how "USB Sucks?"
     
  2. mac15 thread starter macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #3
    I was comparing USB 2.0 to Firewire
    USB is a 2.0 and it should be faster than firewire
    thats all
     
  3. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #4
    Comparing USB to Firewire is like comparing ADB to SCSI. The two are quite different implementations of serial device I/O, and they do not (or at least are not intended to) compete against each other - they are the yin and the yang of external peripheral component I/O in desktop systems today, and they work very well together (at least I think so). There are big advantages - namely having to do with cost and performance - in having separate buses for low- and high-bandwidth peripherals

    USB was designed to replace the serial and parallel ports on PCs. Apple decided to phase out ADB in favor of it (wise). It was never intended to be a performance monster. It was intended to be cheap, although I don't use that word in a derogatory manner. USB really works well for what it was designed to do.

    Firewire was designed to replace the high chipset cost, high pin-count, and highly demanding cabling requirements of SCSI in the consumer market. It is itself a more elegant and simplistic (but not underperforming) implementation of SCSI. Firewire makes lots of things possible that weren't before - imagine a 68-pin Ultra2 connector on your digital video camera in place of the Firewire port, connected to the computer with a $90 6-foot half-inch-diameter SCSI cable. No, on second thought, don't imagine that.

    Alex
     
  4. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #5
    Yes

    Very good description. I like your thinking!
     
  5. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    Those results are really surprising.
    USB 2.0 is supposed to have an 80Mb/s advantage over FiWi.

    When we've got 800 Mb/s FiWi, USB 2.0 is gonna seem like 56K compared to Cable or DSL!
     
  6. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #7
    sounds like some of you didnt even follow the link before posting.

    firewire completely wasted usb2.

    and alex_ant everything you said is true but you seem to miss the point entirely. we are talking about usb2 which is designed to compete with firewire and work as a highspeed solution.

    usb was originally designed as alexant said but ms is now trying to use usb2 to fill a larger role. if it didnt suck so much it would be a good idea. basically one port taht can do it all. it would simplify things even more. one port that works for all you high and low speed needs. unfortunately it seems it doesnt seem to even compete with firewire1 let alone firewire 2 which we have all been eagerly anticipating.
     
  7. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #8
    my $2 worth

    For me USB is, and always will be, just for input devices (such as keyboards and mice) and printers. Anything that requires more bandwidth/performance will go FireWire. Things such as hard drives and scanners are better off with FireWire then trying to cater to the new USB 2. Firewire has been out long enough to be a proven technology, and as mentioned before USB is trying to catch up. Even though USB 2 might be theoretically faster (not by all that much) I think the real world truth (as mentioned before in this thread) is just the opposite.

    One advantage of having seperate busses for the keyboard/mouse/printer and storage/scanners/etc is that if one has a faulty device on it, it won't mess up the other. You can have a firewire drive that suddenly stops working, but it won't effect your USB keyboard and mouse.

    USB was designed for input devices and printers, FireWire was designed for high throughput for storage devices and other similar devices. I think that has more to do with the difference then anything else. How can you possibly have a USB 2 connection that will still run a keyboard AND be used for high speed data transfer?

    When have peecee's ever done innovations correctly, at least the first time (or without several recalls and revisions)? Apple, on the other hand, has a much better track record.
     
  8. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Europe
    #9
    I personally like Firewire this is due to when I ran tests, USB2 was slower at DVD-RAM writing.

    There is a big draw back in USB2 is that you have to have a host computer to run it, where as firewire can talk device to device.

    Ensign
     
  9. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #10
    Read the article? As if. :) I wasn't aware USB 2.0 was being pushed to compete against FIrewire, though. I never expected it to touch Firewire in terms of raw performance, and I guess I'm not surprised that it doesn't. I disagree that "one port for everything" is a good idea. I don't want my printer and scanner and mouse and keyboard on the same bus as my digital camcorder and my external hard drive... I just don't.

    USB 2.0 sounds a lot like today's "fast" IDE interfaces. Looking good on paper, but with lots of not immediately apparent performance compromises for the sake of cost and backwards-compatibility. Price aside, I'd rather have a 40MB/s ultra-wide SCSI interface than a "133MB/s" Ultra ATA interface. (Indeed I used to.) The cost difference between USB 2.0 and Firewire, though, is much smaller - probably a few dollars. But a few dollars make a lot of difference to PC clone manufacturers who barely make a profit as it is.

    I will read the article, though, if I'm found to be way off base again. :)

    Alex
     
  10. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #11
    USB 2.0

    USB 2 will be used to things like scanners, CD Burners, and crap like that. Firewire 2 will be for Hard Drives, DVD RW, DV Decks, and Mini DV cam-corders.
     
  11. dualburn001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    #12
    Re: USB 2.0

    cd burners would go to firewire 2 as well
     
  12. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    Re: USB 2.0

    Don't forget the ever popular USB keyboard, mouse and webcam!
     
  13. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #14
    Re: Re: USB 2.0

    Hell yeah.. and scanners too (I have one that uses Firewire now).
     
  14. MacAztec macrumors 68040

    MacAztec

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    #15
    Re: Re: Re: USB 2.0

    FireWire 2 on a CD Burner? What a waste of technology. And Scanners?!? Not unless it has a super duper DPI!
     
  15. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: USB 2.0

    How about 2400x4800dpi??? Epson Perfection 2450 Photo scanner... Does trans. and reflective scans. I went with the firwire since I didn't want to wait on the bottleneck of USB to bring the scan's into my computer. When you scan an image and it comes out at anything larger then 5-10MB, Firewire is a BIG plus.

    When burners exceed the 40x-48x burn mark, they will benefit from the faster transfer. Right now, the only way they can get the 24x-32x is with a buffer underrun protection chip
     
  16. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #17
    i didnt mean one port. i meant one kind of port. you would hopefully have four or five of them. also if we are talking the future then keyboards mice and monitors would be wireless. your low throughput devices can plug into one port your high throughput devices go through the same type of port but a separate port.

    its always funny when people comment on a thread without having read anything anyone said and what the referring article was about. lots of you seem to have missed the point entirely. i see it all the time but this thread is particularly bad. dont worry guys if you go to the link no reading is required just look at some bar graphs.

    we all seem to be well aware that firewire is way better than usb2 and that firewire2 will blow everything else away. but the frightening trend is that the industry is switching to usb2. most peecees dont have firewire and if you go to a computer store its getting harder to find firewire devices. hopefully since usb2 is so much slower (as that link shows) devices will begin to need more than it can offer and engineers will have to firewire/firewire2. lets hope apple gets firewire2 out so that firewire will beat usb2 in the fairyland that peecee users seemt to be in and in real life.
     
  17. jaykk macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    #18
    Ultra-Fast FireWire Card in the Works

    While Initio's first product to be released will operate at 800 Mbps, the 1394 Trade Association's roadmap calls for eventual speeds of 3.2 gigabits per second.
    read the full story here
    http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16720.html
     

Share This Page