Why Apple hasn't included USB 2

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by gopher, Sep 13, 2002.

  1. gopher macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    #1
    Turns out USB 2 is not all it has been ballyhooed about. I spoke with a tech who really knows his stuff, and he tells me that USB 2's maximum throughput is 150 Mbps, with the rest being absorbed by overhead problems with USB 2 itself. With Firewire a genuine 400 Mbps at a steady rate there is no reason for Apple to include a problematic technology at best, and a slow technology at worse. Of course 1394b is just around the corner with a maximum throughput of 1.6 Gbps. So next time you see a PC Wheenie who asks why Apple hasn't included USB 2, tell them that Apple already has a technology more than twice the speed, and is working on one more than 4 times the speed of USB 2 to come out within a year. And for that matter USB 2 slows to the USB 1 speed when a single USB 1 device is on the bus.

    Links for Firewire devices:

    http://www.shipitforyou.com/cgi-bin...&HKW=CAT2_3D+SIFY&GEN7=FireWire 1394 Products

    http://www.fwdepot.com/
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    hehehehehe, those wintel boxes with their USB2 ports can kiss even my current FireWire ports a$$, and then come back for seconds when we get FireWire 2! :D :D :D ;)
     
  3. g4pismo macrumors member

    g4pismo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Atlanta
  4. SilvorX macrumors 68000

    SilvorX

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    'Toba, Canada
  5. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #5
    >(gopher) So next time you see a PC Wheenie who asks why Apple hasn't included USB 2, tell them that Apple already has a technology more than twice the speed, and is working on one more than 4 times the speed of USB 2 to come out within a year.

    Heh, it may be more than 4x (or even 6x), since USB2 is actually slower than 480Mbps or even regular Firewire by some 2-dig. percent, and that there are rumors for a 3.2Gb optical Firewire line or something like that.

    When USB(x) comes out Firewire(x-1) will probably still kick USB's you-know-what. :D :p
     
  6. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #6
    wouldn't it be nice if apple had firewire 2 and usb 2?...to cover all bases?

    firewire 2 will be great and i can't wait

    how's it going, son:p
     
  7. blackpeter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
  8. dricci macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    #8
    I think Apple will start including USB 2 when they start shipping FireWire 2 ports. Probably starting on all new products in 2003.
     
  9. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #9
    Well put. I wouldnt put a crappy ass USB 2.0 port on my DV camera. Not in a million years. I need asyncronous transfer and a dedicated 30 MBps for even small DV projects. Plus, apple built part of its recent foundation w/ firewire and the superiorness of it to USB. Firewire 2 is just like rust on a knife, its an unnessary insult (to USB that is :p ).

    Also, firewire does have a superior symbol.... :cool:
     
  10. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #10
    >(jdawg) wouldn't it be nice if apple had firewire 2 and usb 2?...to cover all bases?

    I'm not too sure if USB 2 will even become a necessity. What are you going to use USB 2 for that Firewire can't do?

    Sure, there are a few CD-RWs with USB 2, but I don't see the point of it, when Firewire kicks it's ash.

    I think it would be more efficient just to have 3 or 4 Firewire ports, and 3 or 4 USB 1 ports.

    >firewire 2 will be great and i can't wait

    No doubt about it. But I'm sure it will only start with the PowerMacs, then work it's way to the iMac/Powerbook, then the iBook, assuming it gets a G4 soon.

    >how's it going, son:p

    Oh, not bad. I spent the night out having dinner with the family...pops! :D :p
     
  11. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #11
    Still...

    I do wonder sometimes why people keep complaining about a lack of either one, especially USB2. Think about it - there are NO FireWire 2 devices yet, and very few USB 2 devices, mostly incompatible with Macs anyway.
     
  12. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #12
    Re: Still...

    on the contrary, there are many usb 2.0 drives. Mostly cd burners and portable HD's. But firewire still dominates the larger and more lucrative, dv market second to none.
     
  13. reyesmac macrumors 6502

    reyesmac

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Central Texas
    #13
    Why not have usb2?

    It might be a crappy technology but thats what most of the drives you see at walmart and ordinary stores with an electronics section have. The reason is because it has been adopted by the biggest makers of cd burners and it was cheaper when it came out than even firewire is now.
    I wouldnt use usb2 for the fastest newest technology, but for a cheap external 16x CD burner, usb2 is better than firewire because firewire is hard to find for around $100. Show me a cheap firewire drive then see how fast a burner you can get with usb2 at the same price.
    USB2 is fine for little things that take up bandwith like video cameras that go on top of your monitor or microphones or whatever. Use firewire for hardrives or really important things, but i think usb2 is fine for more consumer oriented things. I wish apple would have made firewire an open standard since it invented it back around 1998 so we would be able to see lots more firewire products in all kinds of stores, but, they wanted to control the technology, and now usb2 will probably end up being used more because of it, even though it is not as good.
    I am glad to see they have learned from that lesson.
     
  14. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #14
    Re: Why not have usb2?

    Ok. Firewire was first devolped in 1995 (yeah i know hard to believe, eh?). USB 2 cant even operate on the same level with firewire. Some people say USB2 is better cuz it can support more devices on a chain. But c'mon, who can afford even 63 firewire drives (let alone need them), but now usb2 can support over 170 in a chain. Thats just overkill in my opinion. Also, USB requires a host computer, unlike firewire. Which means firewire can trasnfer stuff to other firewire drives w/o using a computer between them. USb couldnt do that if it wanted to. This need for a computer also slows down USB2's performance because the transferr via the PC will slow down the transfer tremendously.
     
  15. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #15
    I can live w/o USB2 but I think that if apple was a company that wanted the best for its customers then it would include USB2 just because it is better then USB1.1. A pro machine should have USB2 just because its better.
     
  16. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #16
    I would only put it in a mac if i felt it rele necessary to have it. i mean, i already have firewire and i can just buy a firewire cd burner (id need a hub first tho but tahts another story) or firewire hd and have the same exact perfromance or a margine so small its unnoticable. Im comtent with the USB 1.1 performance w/ my mouse and keyboard. No need to just suddenly change it.
     

Share This Page