New Apple Portables To Drop FireWire Support?

[steve_hill4]

Yeah that's probably how he makes decisions, dumps it on macrumors and watches the feedback

Interesting theory, but I think there is some element of truth in that. I'm sure rumours like these get leaked out well in advance to test public reactions to any major changes. Either way, someone at Apple will surely pick up on this message and it may filter up to people making decisions, so we can have some influence.

Just keep voting how your heart tells you to and i'm sure those votes will rack up to the point Apple will realise how unpopular the move away from Firewire would be. Not that public/Mac community opinion has ever stopped them from making unpopular choices in the past, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.

 

[Yvan256]

Kill FireWire already (USB 2.0 isn't THAT bad)

Sure, FireWire is better than USB 2.0, and FireWire 800 is probably better than the yet-to-be-announced (and supported) USB 3.0. However, only profesionnals use FireWire 800, so it may be a good time to drop FireWire before the main public catch on. Let's face it: aside from miniDV (and iPods), FireWire 400 never really got off the ground when compared to USB 2.0.

in the long run, having two standards that do pratically the same thing is bad for the users (kinda like Beta vs VHS, ADC vs DVI, Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, Compact Flash vs Memory Stick vs SD vs, well, too many flash card formats). It doesn't make for a "simple computing experience" if you have too many standards. Even FireWire 800 isn't connector compatible with FireWire 400. Not a good move, if you ask me. I also have to guess that USB 3.0 will use the same connector as USB 2.0 (here's hoping).

Maybe Intel could, with the help of Apple, add the good bits of FireWire (what prevents it from sucking CPU power) to USB 3.0 so it's the best of both worlds.

So in the short term, it's a bad idea (because of all the miniDV camcorders out there), but in the long term it's the same as the ADC vs DVI debate: you have to go with the most spread standard even if it's not the best one (as long as it's "almost as good").

In the long term, it's good for everyone because you don't have to fight for something "special" (ADC, PowerPC, FireWire, to name a few), you go with the flow and simplify the "computer" experience for regular (non-technical) users.

What makes a Mac isn't the hardware itself. It's the way it's built together, it's the operating system it runs. I don't care if it has an Intel processor or no FireWire ports, as long as has OS X and incredible software like the iLife suite.

 

[EricNau]

Sure, FireWire is better than USB 2.0, and FireWire 800 is probably better than the yet-to-be-announced (and supported) USB 3.0. However, only profesionnals use FireWire 800, so it may be a good time to drop FireWire before the main public catch on. Let's face it: aside from miniDV (and iPods), FireWire 400 never really got off the ground when compared to USB 2.0.

in the long run, having two standards that do pratically the same thing is bad for the users (kinda like Beta vs VHS, ADC vs DVI, Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, Compact Flash vs Memory Stick vs SD vs, well, too many flash card formats). It doesn't make for a "simple computing experience" if you have too many standards. Even FireWire 800 isn't connector compatible with FireWire 400. Not a good move, if you ask me. I also have to guess that USB 3.0 will use the same connector as USB 2.0 (here's hoping).

Maybe Intel could, with the help of Apple, add the good bits of FireWire (what prevents it from sucking CPU power) to USB 3.0 so it's the best of both worlds.

So in the short term, it's a bad idea (because of all the miniDV camcorders out there), but in the long term it's the same as the ADC vs DVI debate: you have to go with the most spread standard even if it's not the best one (as long as it's "almost as good").

In the long term, it's good for everyone because you don't have to fight for something "special" (ADC, PowerPC, FireWire, to name a few), you go with the flow and simplify the "computer" experience for regular (non-technical) users.

What makes a Mac isn't the hardware itself. It's the way it's built together, it's the operating system it runs. I don't care if it has an Intel processor or no FireWire ports, as long as has OS X and incredible software like the iLife suite.

People don't think about/care about the "log run." If Apple drops support for Firewire, no one with a Digital Camcorder would buy an Apple Computer. They would NOT think, "well, gee, maybe in 5 years Digital Camcorders will use USB 3.0, so in the meant time, I just won't take any more videos."

And why do you suppose Digital Camcorders have always used Firewire? - It's because USB 2.0 wasn't good enough - and the world is starting to catch on. Now almost all PC's have atleast some form of Firewire.

 

[trebblekicked]

Sure, FireWire is better than USB 2.0, and FireWire 800 is probably better than the yet-to-be-announced (and supported) USB 3.0. However, only profesionnals use FireWire 800, so it may be a good time to drop FireWire before the main public catch on... <snip>

gotta disagree with you there. the amount of professional peripherals that are FW400 specific alone is enough to keep FW alive. not just video pro's, either. most of the high end digidesign hardware is firewire based, high end scanners and printers, storage, still cameras, video cameras, etc...

the consumer ecosystem isn't exactly lacking, either. tons of external hard disks and optical drives, backup sytstems, camcorders, webcams and such are out there, and still being manufactured.

i don't think anyone will care if apple ups all systems to FW800, but to ax FW all-together just doesn't make sense.

 

[steve_hill4]

i don't think anyone will care if apple ups all systems to FW800, but to ax FW all-together just doesn't make sense.

I think some will, especfially those with older FW400 HDDs and iPods etc, they would have to start buying new cables adapters, unless Apple provide a few in the box, (still that would be messier).

 

[aswitcher]

Firewire 800 is backward compatible. ALL existing Firewire devices will work just fine with Firewire 800.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75471


Take care,
Quark

Yeah, if they do only FW800 and supply a FW400 to FW800 dongle adapter thingy allowing all to work as normal, then I dont see any fuss assuming it works seemlessly. My only concern is that the power ranges keep at least 2 FW800 ports so we can such video off one straight onto the harddisk plugged into the other as we can do now...

 

[Mechcozmo]

Sure, FireWire is better than USB 2.0, and FireWire 800 is probably better than the yet-to-be-announced (and supported) USB 3.0. However, only profesionnals use FireWire 800, so it may be a good time to drop FireWire before the main public catch on. Let's face it: aside from miniDV (and iPods), FireWire 400 never really got off the ground when compared to USB 2.0.

Eh, all the hard drives out there? And marginalizing the thousands of miniDV cameras with FireWire vs. USB 2.0 is not a good thing to do.

Maybe Intel could, with the help of Apple, add the good bits of FireWire (what prevents it from sucking CPU power) to USB 3.0 so it's the best of both worlds.

Pretty hard to do without making USB 3.0 incompatible with USB 2.0 and 1.1. It would mean completely different chipsets in the new devices that wouldn't work with older devices. Plus, I don't think USB will ever do daisy-chaining like FireWire can.

So in the short term, it's a bad idea (because of all the miniDV camcorders out there), but in the long term it's the same as the ADC vs DVI debate: you have to go with the most spread standard even if it's not the best one (as long as it's "almost as good").

ADC wasn't the best. It only supported USB 1.1 with no foreseeable way to change that easily. ADC also would need a completely different connector for the 30" screen. DVI lets Apple change the computer or screen without messing up anything else. It also supports that 30" screen without breaking support for other screens. DVI is better than ADC.

What makes a Mac isn't the hardware itself. It's the way it's built together, it's the operating system it runs. I don't care if it has an Intel processor or no FireWire ports, as long as has OS X and incredible software like the iLife suite.

So if your PowerBook weighed 8 pounds and was 2 inches thick and was big, blue, and ugly, would it still help the Mac experience? The Macintosh experience IS partly hardware. Clean lines, small notebooks, stylish metal. The iMac G5 is another great example of this. It looks like a monitor but is really a computer. OS X adds to it making it complete. The iMac could have been 5" thick, loud, hot, noisy, but it IS NOT. Apple makes hardware and software for a reason; to make sure they both work correctly.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Yeah, if they do only FW800 and supply a FW400 to FW800 dongle adapter thingy allowing all to work as normal, then I dont see any fuss assuming it works seemlessly.

I can. I don't like to carry anything more than necessary when I'm traveling with my PowerBook. This dongle thing would really suck; something else to be lost, stolen, damaged, etc. Laptops need to be mostly self-contained and having five different dongles won't really work too well.

I guess this may mean that the 12" PowerBook finally gets FW800 though, eh?

 

[faintember]

I can. I don't like to carry anything more than necessary when I'm traveling with my PowerBook. This dongle thing would really suck; something else to be lost, stolen, damaged, etc. Laptops need to be mostly self-contained and having five different dongles won't really work too well.

Totally agreed, plus it is another conversion, which may not sound bad to many people out there, but in my field (audio) conversions=possible degradation of the source material=.

 

[shawnce]

Totally agreed, plus it is another conversion, which may not sound bad to many people out there, but in my field (audio) conversions=possible degradation of the source material=.

FW 400 and 800 conversion does not affect the data, it is mostly a pin out issue.

 

[eclipse]

What is this? Are they trying to connect everything up wireless? Is the next PB going to have an internal airport or something?

 

[eclipse]

Oh, and I agree, less dongles! And they smell bad.

 

[randas]

What is this? Are they trying to connect everything up wireless? Is the next PB going to have an internal airport or something?

Internal airport? sounds hitech and futureistic!

hold up, thats been standard for as long as i can remember

 

[wnameth]

Internal airport? sounds hitech and futureistic!

hold up, thats been standard for as long as i can remember

yea since 03

 

[strange days]

i have just bought 4 x 300Gb SEAGATE external firewire hard disks; and i would have not bought the USB2 version no matter what.

i've tried and compared external HD data transfer between USB2 and FW400, and let me tell you USB2 is CPU intensive and buggy ( when you're multitasking ), while FW is just perfect ( and not CPU intensive, since a dedicated chip takes care of the data flow ).

die USB2, die !!!

 

[igetit]

Man am I happy I bought my new PB 17". I took a lot of crap from the "Intel Hopefools" about not waiting for the next generation of portables. In all honesty as of right now I don't even care. I will be happy with my new PB for at least three to four years. I won't have to update all my sound recording software any time soon and I get to use any DV camera in the market (at least for now)

 

[faintember]

FW 400 and 800 conversion does not affect the data, it is mostly a pin out issue.

True, but it is another physical conversion. Audio interface to FW 400 cable to FW400/800 adapter to computer just adds another possible place for problems to occur. Ehhh maybe i am wrong...

 

[jane doe]

They wont be dropping firewire and they wont be doing an adapter.

Do make an adapter will cost the same per port to make as it would to simply place the port on the board.

 

[Yvan256]

So if your PowerBook weighed 8 pounds and was 2 inches thick and was big, blue, and ugly, would it still help the Mac experience? The Macintosh experience IS partly hardware. Clean lines, small notebooks, stylish metal. The iMac G5 is another great example of this. It looks like a monitor but is really a computer. OS X adds to it making it complete. The iMac could have been 5" thick, loud, hot, noisy, but it IS NOT. Apple makes hardware and software for a reason; to make sure they both work correctly.

Well, if you had the choice between an ugly beige box that ran OS X or a stylish iMac-style computer that ran Windows XP, which one would you choose?

Fortunately, we don't have to choose between the two.

Also, it seems I was misunderstood by a lot of people: sure, FireWire is used by a lot of devices, and it would be a bad move for Apple to remove it from their computers (especially in the short and medium term). However, for every FireWire device you can find, there's at least a dozen similar devices that only supports USB 2.0. And in fact, trying to find FireWire devices in regular computer stores (not chains) is actually pretty hard.

I do have to agree, however, that Apple may leap forward everything else with a "wireless firewire". It would be nice to have less cables and it actually fits Apple's computing vision (easier setup and overall cleaner look).

 

[Yvan256]

Pretty hard to do without making USB 3.0 incompatible with USB 2.0 and 1.1. It would mean completely different chipsets in the new devices that wouldn't work with older devices. Plus, I don't think USB will ever do daisy-chaining like FireWire can.

I don't think it's a problem, all they'd need to do is to make USB 3.0 chipset have a built-in CPU (like FireWire, I think) to do all the work instead of the computer itself. Devices wouldn't know the difference and it could even make USB 2.0 devices faster, closer to their 480 Mbps limit.

The same thing happened back in the RS-232 days, when they added FIFO buffers to the chips (less data dropped by the CPU, less handshaking handled by the CPU, faster overall speeds). It allowed new faster speeds while still making old devices perform close to their maximum speed (and allowed older computers to reach new speeds with a simple new interface between the computer and modem).

 

[Yvan256]

i have just bought 4 x 300Gb SEAGATE external firewire hard disks; and i would have not bought the USB2 version no matter what.

i've tried and compared external HD data transfer between USB2 and FW400, and let me tell you USB2 is CPU intensive and buggy ( when you're multitasking ), while FW is just perfect ( and not CPU intensive, since a dedicated chip takes care of the data flow ).

die USB2, die !!!

I do agree that for now, FireWire beats USB by a wide margin. I, myself, buy FireWire devices when I have a choice (well, except for a scanner - I'm gonna wait for the scanning anyway, there's no need to double the price to have a FireWire scanner).

They could, however, make better USB chipsets that aren't CPU intensive (see my reply above). Just because current chipsets aren't good doesn't mean the protocol itself is bad and can't be improved.

I guess we'll see what Apple does in January. I do agree about dongles though (I have a 12" PowerBook, that mini-DVI is annoying, I need a dongle for either VGA, DVI or S-Video...)

 

[Mechcozmo]

Well, if you had the choice between an ugly beige box that ran OS X or a stylish iMac-style computer that ran Windows XP, which one would you choose?

I'd care if the WinXP computer was quieter, went to sleep and woke up easily (or that damned Hibernation thing), etc. then I'd consider the WinXP one. Why? Because it isn't the looks so much as the functionality. The ability to close the PowerBook and have it sleep has as much to do with hardware as it does with software. (Magnets in the latch)

However, for every FireWire device you can find, there's at least a dozen similar devices that only supports USB 2.0. And in fact, trying to find FireWire devices in regular computer stores (not chains) is actually pretty hard.

I am finding this had to believe... I've seen usually a fair number of FW-only devices as well as a lot of mixed FW/USB devices. I was in a very small computer store where the clerk told me it was probably best to get a FireWire PCI card for $10 and the CD-RW they had for $20 than to buy the $15 USB 2.0 one. Interesting conversation, but it ended with the drive needed to be USB 1.1 compatible otherwise I'd have gone with the FireWire variant.

 

[iMan]

More on wireless FW

http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2004Press/may/5.10.a.htm

"Use of the IEEE 802.15.3 MAC and Wireless 1394 standards enables immediate product development. Product engineers familiar with FireWire already have the expertise required to collaborate with RF engineers in designing the next generation of wireless equipment such as set top boxes, HDTVs, tuners and DVD players. All of these wireless products will be able to interoperate. Also, the wireless PAL supports IEEE P1394.1 bridges, so new wireless devices will connect to and work with existing FireWire products. "

"Consumers will benefit as we bring together the convenience of wireless technology with the high speed and high-quality real-time performance of FireWire at 400 Megabits/second speeds.”


This from May 2004 - I really believe it is coming. Mac's will have firewire, just not the ports we're used to... this is obviously a far more convenient solution than what we have today - another effort from Apple to completely remove the cable clutter.

 

[grapes911]

This from May 2004 - I really believe it is coming. Mac's will have firewire, just not the ports we're used to... this is obviously a far more convenient solution than what we have today - another effort from Apple to completely remove the cable clutter.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course it is coming. Personally, I can't wait. But that is not the point. By your reasoning, notebooks should not come with an ethernet port because they have build-in wireless.

 

[iMan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course it is coming. Personally, I can't wait. But that is not the point. By your reasoning, notebooks should not come with an ethernet port because they have build-in wireless.

At some point that will happen - but the difference is still huge; for wifi you need a $100 periferal for it to work - it is one connection to your computer only, and it is a network to communicate with so you always keep it "on".
For FW you have a point to point connection mostly to equipment with no life of it's own, used primarily in shorter periods and there are usually multiple sources - each with its own cable; so if you can provide one cheap "hub" or something for old equipment you are done (might even be included with the laptop) - for anything new (camcorders, cameras, hd etc) the wireless ability is already built in, so no need for extra stuff...
Benefit: you loose a lot of cables, easy access to other hardware even when moving the laptop around the room, ever had all FW ports used? no more problems with that...
It might even easily set you up for streaming videos, images and such to your TV set/projector etc.