Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
firewire 400 dead?
- Thread starter donga
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. At this point, I want Apple to put two FireWire 3200 on the Nehalem Mac Pro and just be done with it after that. Let it go out with some dignity.
usb 3 in 2010...
that said, my old 10gb firewire ipod smokes my new usb2 80gb classic ipod when it comes to reloading after a format. the speed difference is really noticeable, and yes, I am loading identical libraries, about 5gb. The other crap goes on the 80 after initial sync.
that said, my old 10gb firewire ipod smokes my new usb2 80gb classic ipod when it comes to reloading after a format. the speed difference is really noticeable, and yes, I am loading identical libraries, about 5gb. The other crap goes on the 80 after initial sync.
Sadly, yes. Despite it's age though, it's still faster than USB2.0 on your average computer and I wouldn't be shocked if USB3.0's 'advertised' (marketing speak for 'lie'?) data rate was as much horse **** as USB2.0's.
Viva la 400! (I still use it for my external HDs)
Viva la 400! (I still use it for my external HDs)
Most of the audio devices are still FW400 and they're all vastly superior to anything USB on the market. FW400 does it's job extremely well for pro audio production, much better than USB. Why try to replace something that isn't broken?
Every major manufacturer of audio devices introduced new FW audio interfaces in 2008 and most have announced new products for 2009.
The only people you'll hear talking about how FW400 is "out of date" are a few people on Mac related forums. Meanwhile, the availability of FW on PCs have never been more plentiful.
Every major manufacturer of audio devices introduced new FW audio interfaces in 2008 and most have announced new products for 2009.
The only people you'll hear talking about how FW400 is "out of date" are a few people on Mac related forums. Meanwhile, the availability of FW on PCs have never been more plentiful.
The only people you'll hear talking about how FW400 is "out of date" are a few people on Mac related forums. Meanwhile, the availability of FW on PCs have never been more plentiful.
I just wonder why they stick with such an outdated technology when theyve had plenty of time to implement 800. Are there any downsides other than a different connection?(which to me is rediculous, its different because you guys, the companies, have been living in the past, you need to update eventually!).
Amen ...
It's weird how there is USB, which sucks bollocks; then FW 400, ancient but the most common and solid highspeed interface, and FW 800 still being rare and pricey , while eSata standards seem to change every other day.
Wireless - don't get me started...
Amen ...
It's weird how there is USB, which sucks bollocks; then FW 400, ancient but the most common and solid highspeed interface, and FW 800 still being rare and pricey , while eSata standards seem to change every other day.
Wireless - don't get me started...
Personally, I'm just waiting for the unified PoWE standard.
Power over Wireless Ethernet. Solves the problems of power and data transfers simultaneously. Theoretically, there's nothing stopping this from existing.
Of course. Power over Ethernet has been ratified already, I believe, and Wireless Ethernet exists.
They've also managed a six-foot radius for wireless power now, and it can power a laptop, so wireless power would be great for an iMac.