Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PowerMac G5s - on or around Jan 20th?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
I think "time" has already told :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm seeing FireWire used in stereo product more and more.. Makes sense. I just wish they's move faster. It would be nice to have one wire instead of audio and video cables etc. Waste of money with all those connections.,
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I'm seeing FireWire used in stereo product more and more.. Makes sense. I just wish they's move faster. It would be nice to have one wire instead of audio and video cables etc. Waste of money with all those connections.,
Click to expand...
I've seen many new Video cameras with USB2 and Firewire ports.

Ignoring speed (since that's something that will have them leapfrogging for a time) and uptake on PCs - what are the advantages of each?

My understanding is that
1. there are no licence fees for USB2 (Intel gives it away) and $2 (or so) for Firewire (a couple of years back).
2. USB works for devices connected to a computer, whereas Firewire allows devices to speak together WITHOUT having a computer to control them (which is great for connecting all your stereo devices)

Can anyone help?
 
Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
While this discussion may verge on being off topic, I think that FW did miss the window for being widespread on consumer boxes. Why it did that is probably the more relevent question - I'm not sure if there were any license fees (because I thought it was an industry standard), or if the addidtional cost of FW ports just made most PC makers stick to USB only.

Now that USB 2 has come along, it seems that there will be even fewer consumer PC's with the FW interface - many external HD's now ship with both FW and USB2, so the PC manufacturers will have even less incentive to include FW. If they made users get by with the slow USB, how can these same people complain about only having the faster USB 2.

I know that FW 800 (I have an external drive) does have twice the theoretical speed, but the HDs themselves are still below regular FW speeds. I did see a review in Macworld on these drives from Nov. 2003, that showed that when duplicating files INSIDE an external FW 800 drive the speed increase was about 30%, but that was the largest increase.

As for the use of FW on digital cameras, I wonder if it isn't driven by 2 things: first, wasn't Sony (a huge DV maker) one of the parties, like Apple, with an interest in pushing FW? They seem to be the only PC maker besides Apple that has IEEE1394 ports as standard. And secondly, the 4-pin FW port appears much smaller than comparable USB ports, so given the push to make the DV devices as small as possible this might have also driven it's adoption in DV.

I also agree that FW's success with DV will probably NOT continue to grow with other devices. Besides HDs, I don't see many groups of devices that use FW. Almost no printers, a minority of scanners even given the HUGE speed hit with the origianl USB (granted, high end ones use FW, but with USB2 out this will decrease), and very limited ussage even in tape back-up devices.

edited for spelling mistakes, so everyone won't laugh too hard;)
Click to expand...


Thank you sooooooooooooo much! Finally someone that makes sense! I agree with you 100% - Firewire is on its way to its Death Bed - Apple just got it wrong with FW 400 or even worse 800.
PM G5's need more USB 2.0 ports not FW anything.
 
Originally posted by GregAussie
I've seen many new Video cameras with USB2 and Firewire ports.

Ignoring speed (since that's something that will have them leapfrogging for a time) and uptake on PCs - what are the advantages of each?

My understanding is that
1. there are no licence fees for USB2 (Intel gives it away) and $2 (or so) for Firewire (a couple of years back).
2. USB works for devices connected to a computer, whereas Firewire allows devices to speak together WITHOUT having a computer to control them (which is great for connecting all your stereo devices)

Can anyone help?
Click to expand...
Apple used to licence firewire, but no longer does. If you use the term FireWire, there's a fee, othwise there's no fee.

You're correct with how usb and firewire work. Firewire is more flexible with connections than USB1 or 2. I do think Apple made a mistake with firewire 800. They should have made the connectors the same and made it backwards compatible.. That's where Intel made the correct decision.
 
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Apple used to licence firewire, but no longer does. If you use the term FireWire, there's a fee, othwise there's no fee.

...
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Last I heard, the IEEE group had adopted Firewire as the common name for 1394 and there was no licensing fee associated with its use.

http://www.1394ta.org/license/index.html

The 1394 Trade Association’s FireWire or i.LINK trademarks and icons must each be licensed separately for use by third-parties. There is currently no licensing fee for either.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
Thank you sooooooooooooo much! Finally someone that makes sense! I agree with you 100%
Click to expand...

Pardon me while I chuckle - you see that someone has agreed with you so you jump on his post with the attitude of "see, see, I was right! Haha." Sorry, just find that amusing... :cool:

And then you go on to say "finally someone who makes sense". So anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make sense. Nice one. :p

You could very well be right about FW + USB by the way - but you won't ever hear me saying that you don't make sense if you ever have an alternate point of view to mine. :)
 
Re: Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by ~Shard~
Pardon me while I chuckle - you see that someone has agreed with you so you jump on his post with the attitude of "see, see, I was right! Haha." Sorry, just find that amusing... :cool:

And then you go on to say "finally someone who makes sense". So anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make sense. Nice one. :p

You could very well be right about FW + USB by the way - but you won't ever hear me saying that you don't make sense if you ever have an alternate point of view to mine. :)
Click to expand...


The Box of Kleenex Tissues is on Isle 10 :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Macintosh G5

Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
I disagree with ALL of you. The PC Market doesnt have these problems of Consumer Line Seperations. Just have the iMac and PowerMac - Drop the eMac.
Click to expand...
Apple didn't create the eMac as a low end consumer machine. Apple made the eMac an education only computer (because they keep very close ties with edu and they always seek feedback regarding what they want).
It was the consumer that demanded the eMac, not Apple that pushed the eMac on the consumer.

Apple would be remarkably stupid (even by classic Apple standards) to drop the eMac at this point.
 
Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
Thank you sooooooooooooo much! Finally someone that makes sense! I agree with you 100% - Firewire is on its way to its Death Bed - Apple just got it wrong with FW 400 or even worse 800.
PM G5's need more USB 2.0 ports not FW anything.
Click to expand...

so, what exactly do you base the death of FW on? You are so confident, I'm sure you have a good reason to predict the death of FW.

Is it fact the FW is faster than USB and USB2?
Is it the fact that USB is better for 'bursty' traffic, but that is isn't designed streaming large amounts of data? (that is, it's great for mice, but not great for streaming video)
Is it the fact that a USB device can't manage a bus on its own?

Even the official USB trade group used to admit on their site that FW400 was faster at transfering video than USB2 480Mbit. They've since pulled that ;-) but you can find supporting info from quite a few sources.

What you don't understand is that different technologies are designed to solve different problems.
USB is lower cost and it's designed for bursty traffic.
FireWire is slightly more expensive, but it's designed for high speed sustained data transfer (drives, raids, uncompressed video).

Firewire isn't going away. It will be included on machines that require it but your bargin PC won't have FW, hmn.. just like today. Macs will continue to ship with it for a LONG time as with other machines that need superior external I/O.
 
Re: Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by ffakr
Even the official USB trade group used to admit on their site that FW400 was faster at transfering video than USB2 480Mbit. They've since pulled that ;-) but you can find supporting info from quite a few sources..
Click to expand...
For that we need someone with a computer and device that BOTH support USB2 & Firewire...

Anyone got a G5 and an iPod? or a G5 and an external disk that supports both USB2 & Firewire? Can you time a transfer using each?
 
Re: Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by ffakr
What you don't understand is that different technologies are designed to solve different problems. USB is lower cost and it's designed for bursty traffic.
FireWire is slightly more expensive, but it's designed for high speed sustained data transfer (drives, raids, uncompressed video).

Firewire isn't going away. It will be included on machines that require it but your bargin PC won't have FW, hmn.. just like today. Macs will continue to ship with it for a LONG time as with other machines that need superior external I/O.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd definitely agree with this as well - there is a compelling case for FW at the high end and it will be around for a while. (Not that it's exactly the same example, but one can even still buy SCSI devices! And I for one was only too glad to trash all my old SCSI and the ongoing conflicts I used to have.)

My original post about USB 2 vs FW, however, was addressing the question of whether FW will continue to grow at the expense of USB. As I stated, I think the development of USB 2 really will limit FW in many markets, and probably rightly so. Why should we pay more for a printer (for example) that duplicates ports? Better to spend the money where FW gives a real benefit, such as in DV applications.
 
eMacs

I think that eMacs are going to go out of issue. I heard that the eMac only came about because Apple had a plethora of CRT screens purchased to make a new iMac but decided to go with LCD in the end because prices of LCD dropped.

Now Apple is nearly through it's CRT back log I think the eMac will go.

This is a shame as it really is a great machine for education and SOHO. They are old tech though 133 Mhz RAM, no USB 2.

Will Apple build a G5 iMac. As I said before history tells us no...but then technology improves exponentially. Some one else mentioned the idea of single CPU G5 iMacs and all dual PowerMacs. Why not? The iMac is definately more that it was.
 
Re: eMacs

Originally posted by Atomac
I think that eMacs are going to go out of issue. I heard that the eMac only came about because Apple had a plethora of CRT screens purchased to make a new iMac but decided to go with LCD in the end because prices of LCD dropped.

Now Apple is nearly through it's CRT back log I think the eMac will go.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight: you think every eMac made in the last few years was a result of Apple having a bunch of extra CRT displays kicking around a warehouse? I kind of doubt it. (That's not meant to sound snarky, by the way.)

On the contrary, I thought the eMac was doing quite well. If the people on these forums are indicative of the general consumer, they're a nice machine. If Apple wants to continue supplying computers to schools- especially elementary schools- the eMac's CRT is quite a selling point.

But, then again, we never really know for sure what Apple is going to do.

Squire
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by CalfCanuck
My original post about USB 2 vs FW, however, was addressing the question of whether FW will continue to grow at the expense of USB. As I stated, I think the development of USB 2 really will limit FW in many markets, and probably rightly so. Why should we pay more for a printer (for example) that duplicates ports? Better to spend the money where FW gives a real benefit, such as in DV applications.
Click to expand...
I don't think that FW was ever displacing USB. They fit different roles. USB2, however, will eat into the portable drive niche because the logic (controllers) are cheaper and because USB2 is pervasive.
That doesn't mean that I'd want to run a RAID on it, or even do DV[ideo] on USB2.

I think printers are a good example of devices that should embrace USB[2] and not worry about FW.
There should always be a market for FW hard drives and FW will remain the best serial i/o for digital video. I don't see USB2 displacing FW on DV cameras in any significant way. Not only is it a superior technology for these uses, but the ability of FW devices to control the bus and their own transfers is actually usefull in these situations.
 
Re: Re: eMacs

Originally posted by Squire
So, let me get this straight: you think every eMac made in the last few years was a result of Apple having a bunch of extra CRT displays kicking around a warehouse? I kind of doubt it. (That's not meant to sound snarky, by the way.)

On the contrary, I thought the eMac was doing quite well. If the people on these forums are indicative of the general consumer, they're a nice machine. If Apple wants to continue supplying computers to schools- especially elementary schools- the eMac's CRT is quite a selling point.

But, then again, we never really know for sure what Apple is going to do.

Squire
Click to expand...
I agree. The eMac is a good all in, no fusss, machine. It's based of the original iMac, which was based of the original Mac. If anything, apple can lower the prices and allow for lower income, schools, and families to buy macs for their kids.. I bet those emacs are a lot more rugged than the new iMacs. If Apple could bust out a $600 eMac with a 1.6 G5, the'd be rockin... add an option for a super drive.
 
Re: Re: FW vs USB 2

Originally posted by TranceClubMusic
Thank you sooooooooooooo much! Finally someone that makes sense! I agree with you 100% - Firewire is on its way to its Death Bed - Apple just got it wrong with FW 400 or even worse 800.
PM G5's need more USB 2.0 ports not FW anything.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Why even reply to a post so inane. Death bed... oh-kay, sure, right. Betcha you're one of those that predicts Apple's death year to year to year as well. Love people like you though, without which, we'd have nobody to prove wrong time and time again.
 
UPDATE! More proof of pending PowerMac G5 Updates!

If you'll visit this link: http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/
and scroll down to "The Ultimate Gamer", it clearly shows under suggested specs. a ***256MB*** Radeon 9800 Pro, which obvisously isn't available *yet* from Apple...I guess we'll see soon enough!
 
Originally posted by SouthPaW
UPDATE! More proof of pending PowerMac G5 Updates!

If you'll visit this link: http://www.apple.com/games/hardware/
and scroll down to "The Ultimate Gamer", it clearly shows under suggested specs. a ***256MB*** Radeon 9800 Pro, which obvisously isn't available *yet* from Apple...I guess we'll see soon enough!
Click to expand...
I thought ATI announced this? Maybe I just read it somewhere else in the forums... But that is the first time I've seen it on the Apple website... Not that I look at the website much.

Edit: Here ya go: http://www.macminute.com/2004/01/16/ati
 
Yeah, ATI announced it ONLY as a retail version (so far) and Apple doesn't typically list things on their own website in suggested specs. that you can't purchase directly from them, most usually as BTO options.
 
re: firewire is far from dead

firewire is the basis of the HAVi groupHAVi group a consortium of electronics developers (sony, mitsubishi and 6 others i can't recall) determined to produce a new singe wire home A/V standard.

the concept is you run one firewire cable from your cable box to your dvd player, to your receiver, to your TV, daisy chain style. plug in one device to a wall socket, and that single wire transmits data and power.

the other concept of HAVi, despite single wire, is to have a unified GUI, where you plugin a new HDDVD player, and your television (which would act as the primary UI) detects the new device and puts an access icon on the screen and already knows all of it's capabilities. what's more the API is java so anyone who can write JAVA can create new UI's for their devices.

there's actually a really good book out there calle HAVi example by example, where they take you through building a TiVO like time shift application.

so you see firewire as a standard isn't dead, there is just a huge amount of effort in having new devices not only support firewire in hardware, but also have the software and discoverability aspects complete as well. from what i have read many in the HAVi consortium are waiting for the third generation of firewire, because it supports greater distance of cable.

USB just isn't meant to do any of that, it's a simple low bandwidth bus architecture that has been forced to become high bandwidth to satiate peoples "need for speed" and combat firewire (see we're faster than firewire!).

btw mitsubishi and rca already have several televisions and VCRs with HAVi compliance, sony's playstation has a 1394 connection and all DVcameras too.
 
Re: re: firewire is far from dead

Originally posted by dashiel
firewire is the basis of the HAVi groupHAVi group a consortium of electronics developers (sony, mitsubishi and 6 others i can't recall) determined to produce a new singe wire home A/V standard.

the concept is you run one firewire cable from your cable box to your dvd player, to your receiver, to your TV, daisy chain style. plug in one device to a wall socket, and that single wire transmits data and power.

the other concept of HAVi, despite single wire, is to have a unified GUI, where you plugin a new HDDVD player, and your television (which would act as the primary UI) detects the new device and puts an access icon on the screen and already knows all of it's capabilities. what's more the API is java so anyone who can write JAVA can create new UI's for their devices.

there's actually a really good book out there calle HAVi example by example, where they take you through building a TiVO like time shift application.

so you see firewire as a standard isn't dead, there is just a huge amount of effort in having new devices not only support firewire in hardware, but also have the software and discoverability aspects complete as well. from what i have read many in the HAVi consortium are waiting for the third generation of firewire, because it supports greater distance of cable.

USB just isn't meant to do any of that, it's a simple low bandwidth bus architecture that has been forced to become high bandwidth to satiate peoples "need for speed" and combat firewire (see we're faster than firewire!).

btw mitsubishi and rca already have several televisions and VCRs with HAVi compliance, sony's playstation has a 1394 connection and all DVcameras too.
Click to expand...

That is very cool! I would be very interested to see how this movement pans out.
 
Re: Re: Re: eMacs

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I agree. The eMac is a good all in, no fusss, machine. It's based of the original iMac, which was based of the original Mac. If anything, apple can lower the prices and allow for lower income, schools, and families to buy macs for their kids.. I bet those emacs are a lot more rugged than the new iMacs. If Apple could bust out a $600 eMac with a 1.6 G5, the'd be rockin... add an option for a super drive.
Click to expand...
a 1.4 g4 emac today would sell very well at 800 bucks. i bet they couldnt meet demand if they let it go for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back