USB 2.0 - Not Yet...

[MacRumors]

This MacCentral article discusses Apple's adoption of Firewire 800 and 802.11g, and notes USB 2.0's absense:

Apple has yet to commit to including USB 2.0 on any of its machines, but Rubinstein said the company is watching the technology. All of Apple's current CPUs are come with the slower USB 1.1 technology, which is mainly used to attach keyboards, a mouse or other peripherals to the computer.

The next revision of PowerMacs will not include USB 2.0, but rumors also indicate that Apple is still considering this technology.

 

[alset]

I don't see Apple including a technology that directly competes with it's Firewire tech any time soon. I figure USB 2 will only hit Macs if/when Firewire 800 proves to be less than sufficient.

Dan

 

[macdop]

if the new systems have FireWire 800, I don't see any reason that Apple should not include USB2, after all, why not be compatible with as many communications standards as possible, if Apple does not include USB2, we could very well end up being in the same peripheral boat we were before we had USB, I think many people forget how difficult it was to find peripherals back during the days of ADB and 9 pin serial, I do not miss those days at all!

 

[Abstract]

People will hear about USB2.0, go out looking to buy a computer with all the newest and coolest stuff, and when they see that the Mac only has USB1.1, they'll just turn away and think, "So this is the digital hub?" This will bite Mac in the ass at the end. Of course, Mac will eventually cave in and add USB2 to their line, but by then, it'll look as if Apple is behind in both the Mhz race AND the implementation of new technology. They can't turn their backs on anything right now, especially if it proves to be a way for them not to fall behind the PC in another area.

 

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by Abstract
People will hear about USB2.0, go out looking to buy a computer with all the newest and coolest stuff, and when they see that the Mac only has USB1.1, they'll just turn away and think, "So this is the digital hub?" This will bite Mac in the ass at the end. Of course, Mac will eventually cave in and add USB2 to their line, but by then, it'll look as if Apple is behind in both the Mhz race AND the implementation of new technology. They can't turn their backs on anything right now, especially if it proves to be a way for them not to fall behind the PC in another area.

I see people's point about it competing with FireWire400, but I also fully agree with what you're saying. I recently went looking for compuiters with my cousin (he want's a PC), but I was plugging the Mac, and the lack of USB2 was an issue, even though I said I doubt there's a peripheral he'll ever need with USB2 (as all the machines's specs we looked at has DVD, CDRW etc), and he only want to use Word and email/web.

He also said he didn't like the idea of no two button mouse and a new OS, then he tried a demo PC, and said "What's this? Is this XP? It's like learning a new language."

My point exactly I said, If you're going to learn a new OS, learn a) a better one, and b) something away from work, to get away from it all!

 

[MikeH]

Unless there is a significant cost issue, I don't understand why they are holding back with USB 2.

Although in speed terms it may be almost as quick as Firewire, as far as I'm aware it does not have it's functionality (can you control a DV Cam over a USB 2 cable as you can with FW?).

USB 2 would allow people to take advantage of low cost scanners and printers with out the speed penalty of them being dumbed down to USB 1 speeds, and all USB 1.1 devices will still be usuable - everyone wins as far as I can see.

 

[Buggy]

I only comes down to marketing as many have mentioned.

I doubt that USB2 is going to give knowledgable users much more. But for switchers or others, the lack of USB2 will be anissue for them... (Really not much of an issue but the impression of one is almost as strong).

I tihnk Apple can not buck the masses on this one. The should include it even if it costs them a couple of dollars per machine.

I have soo many PC users complain about the inability to expand an iMac and how great their machines are that they can expand them,,, but when pressed to answer the question of "have you ever expanded your computer?" Almost everyone says yes, I have put in RAM... but they are not able to go beyond that.

The vast majority of computer users I run into have very little real knowledge about their needs vs the power/potential of their ocmputers. Salesmen are too good at fooling people into buying more then they will use or need.

 

[DannyZR2]

WHY!?

`I'm just waiting for one person to actually give me a reason they need USB 2.. what is the point???

To me, a computer company is either gonna use USB 2 or Firewire....

and with Apple inventing Firewire, and now Firewire800, WHY ON EARTH would they need to put in USB 2? USB is for keyboards, printers, and mice.... i know for a fact that none of these devices use even close to the 12Mb max of basic USB 1.

I've yet to see a single thing to use USB 2 for (that I couldn't use Firewire for) and with Firewire800 now out, why would you ask Apple to include a sub-par protocol such as USB2?

Just doesn't make sense why all you morons are getting all worked up about this ... it's pretty senseless.

---

no offense to you arn, you are just providing us the news and rumors about the whole thing... but all of you who are not buying new macs because of the lack of USB2... you suck

 

[OSeXy!]

This is exactly the reason the Al12" ought to have a PCI slot! The TiBook and Al17" are 'future proofed' in this respect. Just pop in a USB2 card and who cares if Steve wants you to use it or not, it's just there (assuming you can get the drivers...). This is why Wall Street G3s (two PCI slots) can have FireWire and iBooks/iMacs of much later vintage cannot (well, not without a great struggle, anyway). Why did Apple skimp on this basic feature?

 

[DannyZR2]

Originally posted by OSeXy!
This is exactly the reason the Al12" ought to have a PCI slot!

You mean a PC card slot???

yeah... thought so.. and yes.. I think that all notebooks should have PC card slots... including the 12" PB... and why not put them on the iMac and other non PCI slot macs? that way they have expandability???

 

[OSeXy!]

Re: WHY!?

Originally posted by DannyZR2
...and with Apple inventing Firewire, and now Firewire800, WHY ON EARTH would they need to put in USB 2?...

The only reason is because Apple cannot control the future. I think it is very possible that new consumer digital toys will adopt USB2 instead of FW. Then what? We'll all be saying "I'd love to get that new Camera, BUT I CAN'T PLUG IT INTO MY COMPUTER!". For the digital hub to really work, it can't be missing too many spokes.

 

[DannyZR2]

well, believe it or not.. apple has changed the way third-party manufactures make their toys...

how long has USB been out? it's been on every pc since 1997 i believe... but when did you start hearing about it? after the first iMac came out August 1998... Apple was not first, but they started the fire...

so what if they DON'T support USB2... that makes FW more attractive for manufacterers.... Apple has more push than we think I do believe... How big has Firewire gotten since it came out first in Apple's computers? I'm certain Firewire 800 will be the same way and then USB2 will look like the pointless venture it is.

Apple is being smart about this.. they are making consumers want Firewire 800 stuff, rather than USB2 stuff... I know that if I had a new 17" PB, I'd want a superfast external FW800 hard drive to go with it (with an superfast controller in the enclosure!)

The wrong with USB2 is that it's not really noticably faster than Firewire (1394a) at only 480Mb vs 400Mb... it just looks a bit better on paper... but really it's not... 800Mb is better, and worth the trouble to design new toys for.

 

[MikeH]

OK we all know that Firewire is better than USB (1 or 2). But for the most part it's overkill, and comparatively expensive.

How many scanners for under $500 have Firewire? I can only think of one, and that doesn't come with OS X drivers. For low cost consumer level hardware USB 2 is a better bet, where as Firewire is better for DV capture and more pro-level hardware.

Firewire has it's place and so does USB 2. I don't think they are direct competitors. Why turn your nose up at USB 2 just because Apple didn't invent it?

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

i was reading this thread wondering why everyone was being so stupid then i finally got to the last two posts and was relieved to see someone with a brain. thanks DannyZ and OSexy.

this is a battle of interfaces. FW versus USB. Firewire is the superior connection. Even fw1 was faster than usb2 but people are duped into thinking usb2 is faster. Apple needs to pull out all the stops in order to win this. I for one do not want to be stuck with crappy usb2 interfaces on everything in a few years. Apple has shown time and again that they are able to control the market. As DannyZ noted usb wasn't fully adopted until Apple began using it. Also note that Firewire 800 is already seeing excellent support. lacie, maxtor, smartdisk all alreaady have firewire800 hard drives out (oxford 922 chipsets). look at the support rendezvous is already getting and apple has barely implemented it itself!

Apple is an innovated. the industry looks to Apple to see where personal computing is going. By not supporting an inferior standard like usb2 apple is helping the industry find the proper path.

i know it is hard to understand for all of you sheep out there shouting you need usb2 (so your mouse can go faster or something) but this is a strategical move by apple and an intelligent one.

 

[DannyZR2]

Originally posted by MikeH
For low cost consumer level hardware USB 2 is a better bet, where as Firewire is better for DV capture and more pro-level hardware.

Low Cost consumer = USB 1.x - If you're looking at either USB2 or 1394x, you are beyond low cost consumer... your printer and scanner and digital still camera are great for USB1, but is there a need for USB2? I don't see it.. PC or Mac! You can't power the devices from the USB2 bus and can't control the devices from the USB2 bus... why is there even a need for USB2? I'll tell you.. because it's "theoretically faster than Firewire" - Now that 1394b is out... that no longer exists... so there is no longer a need for USB2...

"so your mouse can go faster or something" HAHA!!! LMAO!!! that is great!

 

[gotohamish]

Can it work yet?

Hi,

i needed 4 more USB ports in my PowerMac, and didn't want a hub, and the only card I could find was a USB2 one, figuring I don't care if the 2.0 bit doesn't work, as long as the 1.1 does, I bought it - and it doesn't even recognise 1.1 devices. Any ideas people - I need help!! I thought 2.0 was supported in Jaguar.

 

[kiskadee]

Apple should give us USB 2.0. Just because switchers might already have USB2.0 devices. I bought recently a USB2.0 cdwriter. Because i would mostly use it on PC's without Firewire. I was happy being apple to use it on my pismo, but now i'm getting bored of it slowness on that powerbook.

Firewire cdwriters are also more expensive in my area (belgium)

I don't think USB will ever be able to kill Firewire! (Ipod / DV / ...)

ps: because apple now has the mac os x for teachers program also in Europe !!!

 

[Clockwork]

Be careful when comparing firewire and usb when it comes to transfer rates. Firewire comes much closer to it's theoretical peak.

In my opinion Firewire is great for cameras, scanners, printers, harddrives and networking. This has alot to do with the architectural advantages of Firewire. You can control peripherals over Firewire(such as tape decks and cameras), it can provide power/charge your external units and it guarentees 100% that you recieve what you send. No packet loss.
Firewire is however more expensive to implement.
USB is very good for slower peripherals such as mice and keyboards.
Firewire and USB will continue to evolve together and neither one will kill off the other.
1394b has recieved very good reviews since Apple announced it and the first wave of devices have started to arrive.
I don't think the case is that Apple does'nt want to implement USB2. There is still very little use for USB2 and it still cost's more than USB1.0. Consumer digital cameras still use USB1.0 and the Pro cameras still use Firewire.
As for those of you who think that Firewire vs. USB is a case of Apple vs. Intel then I have news for you. Intel is one of the most active developers of IEEE1394.
As for Firewire killing off other standards you should look towards Ethernet as we know it today. IP over Firewire is great and will no doubt catch on to those of us who love to use Firewire for as much as we can.

 

[kiskadee]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but why shouldn't they use firewire to connect hard drives... I don't mean external harddrive because those still use an ATA/IDE interface but special firewire drives (if those exist of course). It is already faster than the new interface intel is developping under the name Serial ATA and firewire is chainable, hot plugable,... Firewire rules...
So i would say: Go Firewire for al very fast devices (harddisks, DV, 'pro' devices) and USB2.0 for consumer devices (low cost scanners, printers, cd writers,...)

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by DannyZR2


Low Cost consumer = USB 1.x - If you're looking at either USB2 or 1394x, you are beyond low cost consumer... your printer and scanner and digital still camera are great for USB1, but is there a need for USB2? I don't see it.. PC or Mac! You can't power the devices from the USB2 bus and can't control the devices from the USB2 bus...[/I]

• I have seen USB2 devices that take power from the USB bus.
• Low end scanners are faster than USB1 speeds. (Or would be if they were on a USB2 interface.
• If you don't believe me, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 (and other low end Canon scanners.
• And as for the cost of USB2 based scanners, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 - $99(US). I think this counts as low cost.
• No, I have no relation to Canon. Except that I am probably buying one of their scanners

 

[Furious Tiger]

Originally posted by Abstract
People will hear about USB2.0, go out looking to buy a computer with all the newest and coolest stuff, and when they see that the Mac only has USB1.1, they'll just turn away and think, "So this is the digital hub?"

I'd like for you to show me what cameras, DV cameras, MP3 Players etc and thier companies have USB 2.0 and advertise them. Very, very, very, very few. Almost one or two products. There are external HDs and burners, but moat PC users that I know do not like that option like us Mac users do. On top on the fact that when these uninformed PC users buy a USB 2.0 product and realize that it will step down to USB 1.1 speeds because of thier keyborad or mouse. It does not make sense. The first incarnation of USB 2.0 and Firewire400, Firewire still kills USB 2.0 in actual performance (TechTV)

 

[Anecdoter]

USB 2.0 Now

While it can be agreed upon that Firewire is superior to USB 2.0, it should also be agreed upon that USB 2.0 is a more established technology. USB 2.0 external hard drives, CD and DVD burners, optical drives, printers, scanners, hubs, etc are everywhere. There's even USB 2.0 external sound cards and cable modems. A brief search of PriceWatch.com for "usb 2.0 drives" shows 38 pages of matches at 15 results per page (570 results) - a search for "USB 2.0" yielded 258 pages (3870 results)A search for "firewire drives" shows 35 pages at 15 results a page (525 results) - a search for "Firewire" gave me 114 pages (1710 results).
The reason is simple: nearly every PC sold now and during the past year (at least) has at least one USB 2.0 port (on average four), yet only a minority of those same machines have a Firewire port of any kind (Sony is an exception). Perhaps Firewire 800 will be a little more ubitiqous, but currently USB 2.0's widespread use is why it gets incorporated into most devices.
The battle of a more superior technology over a more common one is nothing new (think Betamax vs. VHS). Firewire has held its own by dominating the niches its superiority really shines through - external storage, video. Firewire will continue to do so in these areas and will most likely expand.
However, USB 2.0 will be with us for awhile. Too many people are using it and creating products that use it. As pointed out in other posts, USB 1.1 is enough for a lot of "cosnumer" applications - external floppy drives, joysticks, ink-jet printers. USB 2.0 is good for more "pro" uses - high-speed laser printing, CD/DVD/Optical external devices that cannot read faster than 400 mbps. I wouldn't be suprised if Firewire 800 started pushing USB 2.0 out of cable modems, high-end digital cameras and external sound cards though.
The point of my rather long and convuluted message is: USB 2.0 has its place. To ensure that Apple computers work with literary thousands of devices that use USB 2.0 at optimal speeds, Apple should incorporate USB 2.0 into their systems. It is ridiculous to think that if you spend $3200 on a top of the line Power Mac you cannot use a widely adopted standard that is support by many products without first buying an $8 controller card.
I encourage anyone who agrees with me to write Apple (http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html) and tell them why APple needs to add USB 2.0 to their next hardware revisions. Share your stories of trying to get PC users to switch who balk at the fact that Apple does not support USB 2.0 Tell them about all the devices you cannot use at advertised speeds because your Mac connects to them via USB 1.1 and not 2.0

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
this is a battle of interfaces. FW versus USB. Firewire is the superior connection. Even fw1 was faster than usb2 but people are duped into thinking usb2 is faster. Apple needs to pull out all the stops in order to win this. I for one do not want to be stuck with crappy usb2 interfaces on everything in a few years. Apple has shown time and again that they are able to control the market. As DannyZ noted usb wasn't fully adopted until Apple began using it. Also note that Firewire 800 is already seeing excellent support. lacie, maxtor, smartdisk all alreaady have firewire800 hard drives out (oxford 922 chipsets). look at the support rendezvous is already getting and apple has barely implemented it itself!

You are in fantasy land.

For things like scanners, digital cameras (not camcorders), printers, CD and DVD writers both Firewire and USB 2.0 are equivalent technically from an end user's standpoint. The advantages that Firewire has for those devices are purely theoretical from an end user's view. However the cost difference is real. USB 2.0 often shaves as much as $25 off the price (for whatever reason).

USB 2.0 is not supported by Apple and only relatively new PC computers have USB 2.0 support and already look at the number of devices with USB 2.0 interfaces. In one or two years I think it will be difficult to find scanners and digital cameras with Firewire interfaces unless they have been released today.

Just because Firewire 800 has more bandwidth does not mean USB 2.0 will not be a success. It is just like comparing USB 1.1 and Firewire 400. Both are very successful because each has a place. The same will be true for USB 2.0 and Firewire 800. USB 2.0 will be used for inexpensive devices that cannot afford to have the additional costs associated with Firewire.

Apple will have to support USB 2.0 or Mac users will find more and more lower end consumer devices that will not work very well. You can hold your breath and ignore market realities all you want but in the end USB 2.0 have the same market success that USB 1.1 did. Neither Firewire 400 or 800 will in any way prevent that success.

 

[TheInevitable]

If Macs started using USB2, then manufacturers would see that as a green light to go crazy making USB2 devices. What Apple/we wants is more Firewire devices. If a potential switcher is going to not switch because of no USB2, I doubt they are ready to switch. I think Apple's decision makes good business sense.

 

[gopher]

USB 2 may be spec'ed at faster than Firewire 1, but it isn't even close to Firewire 1 in terms of actual speed.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/story/0,24330,3393571,00.html