USB 2.0 - Not Yet...

[Bregalad]

Flatbed scanners would appear to be the biggest market for USB 2.0 on Macs. Even an ancient 300dpi scanner processes data faster than the SCSI bus can send it to the computer. With USB 1.1 running at only a quarter the speed of SCSI, using a 1200dpi USB scanner must be like watching paint dry.

Sadly there's no such thing as a consumer scanner with a FireWire interface.

Once FireWire 800 is established on all Mac models I think you'll see USB 2.0 replace USB 1.1.

Who uses FireWire? Lots of us. Many iMac and PowerMac models shipped with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives. Since you can't use Apple's DVD Player with an external drive, anyone wanting to burn CDs without giving up their DVD player has to get an external drive. Many iBook and PowerBook owners don't want the hassle and expense of replacing their internal drives so they too get external burners.

I have an external CD-RW, hard drive and one of those pocket size HDs. That means not only have I used both FireWire ports on my Mac, but I've invested in a FireWire hub so I can avoid crawling under the desk to plug/un-plug devices.

I've started seeing FireWire on a lot of PC motherboards (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc.) and there are several cases available now with USB and FireWire ports on the front. Both are good signs.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Bregalad
Flatbed scanners would appear to be the biggest market for USB 2.0 on Macs. Even an ancient 300dpi scanner processes data faster than the SCSI bus can send it to the computer. With USB 1.1 running at only a quarter the speed of SCSI, using a 1200dpi USB scanner must be like watching paint dry.

isn't USB 1.1 about as fast as broadband internet? that's nowhere near as fast as SCSI, which is generally faster than ATA 100 if i am not way off. that's at least 100 times faster (the bus, that is)....

 

[zarathustra]

{edit}Please, if you have the hardware knowledge to explain bits/bytes, see my apology a few posts down.{/edit}

{if 1 byte=32 bits????}

USB 1.1 = 11 megabits/second = 0.3 megabytes/second

firewire400 = 11.9 megabytes/second

USB 2.0 = 480 megabits/second = 14.3 megabytes/second

firewire800 = 800 megabits/second = 23.8 megabytes/second

An IBM/Hitachi Deskstar 180 GXP 7200 rpm drive has : 699 megabits/second rating on the media transfer rate and a sustained data transfer rate of 56 to 29 megabytes/second.


Broadband internet "can" reach 1.5 megabits/second. As mentioned before, the USB protocol requires the assistance of the CPU, like a parallel (I think) device used to. FireWire is essentialy, in simplistic terms hot pluggable SCSI. It can function without a CPU, because the protocol allows items that are daisychained to each other to be recognized (what they do, how they do it), and just start working. I can see a firmware update for the iPod, where you can plug it into a CD burner, and burn without a computer. AFAIK, there is no way of plugging two USB devices together and let them communicate without a host.

 

[zarathustra]

*pants*

 

[DarkNovaMatter]

Well even though I hope for USB2 soon, I can see Apple's reasons for holding back- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
Basically USB 2.0 is just an "extension" of 1.1. Apple would have to do silicon for each port for this to even work normally or at somewhere near the speeds Intel claims. Its sort of sad when only one device can utilize the bus, and even with the trick for more then one ISB 2.0 isn't so great. Remember the keyword with USB 2.0 is shared bandwidth, shared bandwidth. I think Apple is waiting till they can come up with a way to add all this new circutry needed for it to be half-way decent. You think Intel could of done a better job at making USB 2.0?

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zarathustra
{if 1 byte=32 bits}

USB 1.1 = 11 megabits/second = 0.3 megabytes/second

firewire400 = 11.9 megabytes/second

USB 2.0 = 480 megabits/second = 14.3 megabytes/second

firewire800 = 800 megabits/second = 23.8 megabytes/second

An IBM/Hitachi Deskstar 180 GXP 7200 rpm drive has : 699 megabits/second rating on the media transfer rate and a sustained data transfer rate of 56 to 29 megabytes/second.


Broadband internet "can" reach 1.5 megabits/second. As mentioned before, the USB protocol requires the assistance of the CPU, like a parallel (I think) device used to. FireWire is essentialy, in simplistic terms hot pluggable SCSI. It can function without a CPU, because the protocol allows items that are daisychained to each other to be recognized (what they do, how they do it), and just start working. I can see a firmware update for the iPod, where you can plug it into a CD burner, and burn without a computer. AFAIK, there is no way of plugging two USB devices together and let them communicate without a host.

i was under the impression that a byte was 8 bits, which is why on a 56 Kbitsps modem, you top out at ~6-7KBytesps, and on my 1.19 Mbps (average) DSL modem, my DLs top out at about 150 KBps....

 

[MacKid]

I agree. . .

Originally posted by gotohamish


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!

I think you're right. It's been said so many times before, but 90% of the world is not educated in why the Mac hardware is superior, even though it appears to be slower/less capable. Many people have a problem with the fact that the bus/MHz, etc. are seemingly so much slower, and it's hard to explain that not a whole lot of USB 2.0 peripherals aren't easily substitutable with USB 1.1 devices, just like some people don't understand that the Mac is so intuitive that you don't have to "learn" to use a new OS, and that there truly is no need for a two-button mouse.

 

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


i was under the impression that a byte was 8 bits, which is why on a 56 Kbitsps modem, you top out at ~6-7KBytesps, and on my 1.19 Mbps (average) DSL modem, my DLs top out at about 150 KBps....

I am not a hardware guy, that's why I put the 1 byte=32 bit disclamier in. I was under the wrong assumption that a 32 bit system will transfer data in 32 bit chunks. My bad.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by zarathustra
{if 1 byte=32 bits}

USB 1.1 = 11 megabits/second = 0.3 megabytes/second

firewire400 = 11.9 megabytes/second

USB 2.0 = 480 megabits/second = 14.3 megabytes/second

firewire800 = 800 megabits/second = 23.8 megabytes/second

An IBM/Hitachi Deskstar 180 GXP 7200 rpm drive has : 699 megabits/second rating on the media transfer rate and a sustained data transfer rate of 56 to 29 megabytes/second.


Broadband internet "can" reach 1.5 megabits/second. As mentioned before, the USB protocol requires the assistance of the CPU, like a parallel (I think) device used to. FireWire is essentialy, in simplistic terms hot pluggable SCSI. It can function without a CPU, because the protocol allows items that are daisychained to each other to be recognized (what they do, how they do it), and just start working. I can see a firmware update for the iPod, where you can plug it into a CD burner, and burn without a computer. AFAIK, there is no way of plugging two USB devices together and let them communicate without a host.

8 bits is 1 byte. The correct numbers:

USB 1.1: 1.25 MB/sec
USB 2.0: 60 MB/sec
FW400: 50 MB/sec
FW800: 100 MB/sec

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings? Hell, how would you even get a chance to see if it scanned right? Firewire is appropriate for some devices, but others that can go either way, there's no reason to not use USB. Processors are beyond a point where USB loads them significantly. Scanners, digital cameras, human input devices (mice, tablets, keyboards), these all are perfectly fine under USB. Camcorders, Hard Drives (marginally CD Burners, now that USB 2.0 is well beyond the bandwidth needed for them a USB variant is not so bad), and high end sound devices are the primary target of firewire.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by zarathustra


I am not a hardware guy, that's why I put the 1 byte=32 bit disclamier in. I was under the wrong assumption that a 32 bit system will transfer data in 32 bit chunks. My bad.

They do, but that has nothing to do with bits and bytes. A 32 bit system does transfer things in 32 bit quantities, but that works out to be 4 bytes worth. The full terminology is:

Bit (1 bit)
Nibble (4 bits)
Byte (8 bits)
Half Word (16 bits)
Word (32 bits)

(note that the last two will change most likely when the 64 bit processors come around. A word is generally accepted to be the amount of data transferred, so in a 32 bit CPU it's 32 bits, in a 64 bit CPU it's 64 bits, etc.)

 

[MacKid]

Re: Can it work yet?

Originally posted by gotohamish
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.

This may seem kind of stupid to suggest, and I'm probably wrong, and sorry for stating the obvious, and asking such a weird question but. . .

Why would 2.0 be supported in Jaguar if no Mac comes with it? Sure you can add things like that but why would you need it except for scanners and HD's? I thought that was what FireWire and USB 1.1 were for. . .

 

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by locovaca


8 bits is 1 byte. The correct numbers:

USB 1.1: 1.25 MB/sec
USB 2.0: 60 MB/sec
FW400: 50 MB/sec
FW800: 100 MB/sec

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings? Hell, how would you even get a chance to see if it scanned right? Firewire is appropriate for some devices, but others that can go either way, there's no reason to not use USB.

Thanks for the correct info.

You missed my point about daisychaining devices. In USB you have to plug into acentral device, with FW you can connect one into another, into another, etc. up to 70-some times. *BUT* if there is relevance for these devices to communicate, they can. There are Audio devices from Panasonic that use FireWire, and instead of having a gagillion (official number, BTW) RCA, and optical cables, you have a FW cable go from the DVD to the Amp, to the DAT, and so on. Without a computer.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by DarkNovaMatter
Well even though I hope for USB2 soon, I can see Apple's reasons for holding back- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html
Basically USB 2.0 is just an "extension" of 1.1. Apple would have to do silicon for each port for this to even work normally or at somewhere near the speeds Intel claims. Its sort of sad when only one device can utilize the bus, and even with the trick for more then one ISB 2.0 isn't so great. Remember the keyword with USB 2.0 is shared bandwidth, shared bandwidth. I think Apple is waiting till they can come up with a way to add all this new circutry needed for it to be half-way decent. You think Intel could of done a better job at making USB 2.0?

IDE is shared bandwidth (a master and a slave). PCI is shared bandwidth. Ethernet with hubs (not switches) is shared bandwidth. Dual G4s share the FSB bandwidth.

USB is not in competition with Firewire!!!! It was made to be cheap! Nor is the task of integrating it as hard as you make it sound- every PC chipset manufacturer, from Intel to Via to SIS to NVidia, has USB 2 on all of their current products. Via has 6 available ports and 3 controllers integrated into their chip, so if you wanted to be a prick about it you could say that they have 1440 MB of bandwidth available. No, it is not hard to do it.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by zarathustra


Thanks for the correct info.

You missed my point about daisychaining devices. In USB you have to plug into acentral device, with FW you can connect one into another, into another, etc. up to 70-some times. *BUT* if there is relevance for these devices to communicate, they can. There are Audio devices from Panasonic that use FireWire, and instead of having a gagillion (official number, BTW) RCA, and optical cables, you have a FW cable go from the DVD to the Amp, to the DAT, and so on. Without a computer.

And that is a very appropriate application, and fits in with the example of "high end sound systems" that I said in my post (which didn't make it into your quote). Everyone is in a gigantic uproar that these two technologies are out to get each other, and they are not. They have different applications. Do you think that IDE companies were screaming at the top of their lungs with U320 SCSI came out? No! They both have their own niches. USB has long needed a bandwidth upgrade since companies started making 10/100 NICs for USB. It is a cheap consumer technology that, like all technologies, needs to grow as the industry demands it.

(Here is another good read)

 

[Bregalad]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
isn't USB 1.1 about as fast as broadband internet? that's nowhere near as fast as SCSI, which is generally faster than ATA 100 if i am not way off. that's at least 100 times faster (the bus, that is)....

Original SCSI only provided 40Mb/s maximum speed for asynchronous transfers. That's the interface you'll find on 5 year old, 300dpi scanners. USB 1.1 has a theoretical maximum speed of only 12Mb/s so it takes even longer for a modern scanner to send data to the host computer.

Over time new forms of SCSI have appeared that run much faster than the original version that first appeared on Macs in 1986. Your comparison to ATA is probably based on modern forms like Ultra160 and Ultra320 SCSI that are often used in servers.

Most DSL tops out at 1.5Mb/s (1500kb/s) downstream, well under the speed of USB 1.1 or 10BaseT Ethernet. Cable internet providers often provide higher bandwidth because a single loop is frequently shared by dozens of subscribers. For example, dslreports.com gives my current download speed from linkLINE as 1658kb/s. Late one night when fewer of my neighbours were online I achieved 3357kb/s from the same server.

 

[nuckinfutz]

There are many things that would be useless to "chain" together in firewire fashion. For example, a scanner and a hard drive. How would you specify settings?

Dude you almost sound like you're making sense. Fireire allows up to 63 Devices chained together. Each device that is either added or deleted from the chain cause the rest of the devices to Automatically update their ID. There is basically NO reason not to Daisychain Firewire devices unless you have power or logistical reasons

IDE is shared bandwidth (a master and a slave). PCI is shared bandwidth. Ethernet with hubs (not switches) is shared bandwidth. Dual G4s share the FSB bandwidth.

Of course most Busses are shared. Shared busses have gotten us through the 90's but notice that the trend is now going back to Serial connections ie Serial ATA/SCSI Firewire is Serial as well. They are superior in many ways to current Bus Topologies.

USB is not in competition with Firewire!!!!

Yes they are competitors. Both connect external periphery. Compete they do.


USB is a decent if not dumb connection. Funny how people are writing about how to describe why Macs don't have USB2. It's easy my friends...extol the virtues of Firewire and you won't have to hang your head.

Look at what Yamaha is doing with mLAN in the music arena. Multiple Channels of Midi, Audio and Synchronization over a thin little cable linking multiple devices...that's cool.

Firewire

1. Support much more power than USB. You can barely run a floppy drive on USB power.

2. Supports Asynchronous/Isynchronous Connections. Multiple Speeds over the same wire at the same time. Guaranteed connections when needed.

3. Auto ID. Pull a device out and the chain renumbers.

4. Hostless communication. No need for a computer.

5. IP...networking. Unibrain and Apple and Microsoft all can do it.

6. Serial technology= better suited to longer cable runs. Optical cables coming. 100Meter maximum length. USB need not apply.

7. Speed...the Firewire spec goes to 3200Mbps.

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire. Did you buy your Apple to have crappy connectivity for crappy peripherals or did you buy The Best ...to run the best. You decide.

 

[jasonbw]

Originally posted by jasonbw

Originally posted by Bear


[*]If you don't believe me, check out the Canoscan EiDE 30 (and other low end Canon scanners.
I just bought one last week, and it is slow on my 867 mdd. on the other hand, my epson 1200u at work is easily faster on usb 1.1


the sad thing is, if i just plugged the damn thing into my dell w/usb2 at home, i could tell you if it made a difference. i'll get back to you.

interesting results...MacUsb1.1..it takes about 20 sec to do a full preview. 65 seconds to scan a 6" x 4" 600 dpi plot on the top of the scan area...and 60 more seconds to finish sending the scan info to photoshop.

I installed a siig usb 2.0 card on the mac...it took the same amount of time.

installed it on the dell machine ....20 min...to install the damn thing. drivers did not want to take.

once installed: 20sec preview...60 second to scan completely.

so it appears that usb2 runs twice as fast on a pc, and doesn't really even work on the mac/siig card combo.

So, i decided to try one more test. usb 1.1 on a different system. 3 year old celeron 500.

20 sec preview...45 second scan.

its one test, so its real bad statistics, but the early conclusion is that in this case, with the same target size, is that usb 1.1 on a pc is faster than 2.0 on a pc and 1.1/2 on a mac.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz


Dude you almost sound like you're making sense. Fireire allows up to 63 Devices chained together. Each device that is either added or deleted from the chain cause the rest of the devices to Automatically update their ID. There is basically NO reason not to Daisychain Firewire devices unless you have power or logistical reasons

That's not what I meant. What I meant by this example was the settings for what was being scanned (what resolution, what actual area to scan, etc.)

Of course most Busses are shared. Shared busses have gotten us through the 90's but notice that the trend is now going back to Serial connections ie Serial ATA/SCSI Firewire is Serial as well. They are superior in many ways to current Bus Topologies.

Serial communications is a quick fix because it's hard to get so many parallel signals to stay in sync and to not crosstalk. The P4 is essentially a "serial" processor- it breaks up the information into very small chunks and processes them as fast as it can. That's what serial is. Serial is not always better.

Yes they are competitors. Both connect external periphery. Compete they do.

They are designed for different devices. You don't drive a moped onto an interstate, even though many can do the "minimum" interstate speed.

USB is a decent if not dumb connection. Funny how people are writing about how to describe why Macs don't have USB2. It's easy my friends...extol the virtues of Firewire and you won't have to hang your head.

Extol the virtues. It is a great technology. I have a DV Camera and a Firewire Burner. That doesn't mean that USB2 is a bad technology. As hard to swallow as it is in a "Us vs. Them" world, but there is such a thing as co-existance.

Look at what Yamaha is doing with mLAN in the music arena. Multiple Channels of Midi, Audio and Synchronization over a thin little cable linking multiple devices...that's cool.

Great. I've already said that this is a beneficial and applicable use of Firewire. There are many times where Firewire, not USB, is the preferred technology. There are also many other times when it is silly to have Firewire because it would be an overkill. Digital Still Cameras, Scanners, Mice, Keyboards, 10/100 Network Cards, 802.11b or g, printers- these are all underneath Firewire's bandwidth limitation and also do not have a need to be independent from a computer.

Firewire

1. Support much more power than USB. You can barely run a floppy drive on USB power.

*Shrug*. I don't have a problem with this. All of my USB periphrials (keyboard, mouse, webcam, digital camera, pda) do just fine off of USB power. My camera uses its own batteries, but it doesn't bother me any- it never stays on for more than a few minutes. But hey, if having a power supply for a scanner is a problem, get the firewire version.

2. Supports Asynchronous/Isynchronous Connections. Multiple Speeds over the same wire at the same time. Guaranteed connections when needed.

Again, that's because this is what Firewire was designed for! USB wasn't designed for digital video! It was designed as a cheap consumer connection. You're taking the applications of Firewire and trying to apply them to USB, which makes no sense because USB wasn't designed for those in the first place.

3. Auto ID. Pull a device out and the chain renumbers.

I don't see how this is a problem with USB. Pull out a mouse and everything still works. Plug it back in and X has no problem finding the mouse again.

4. Hostless communication. No need for a computer.

Again, this is an application that Firewire, not USB, was designed for. You're trying to take the square piece of wood and fit it through the circular hole.

5. IP...networking. Unibrain and Apple and Microsoft all can do it.

Great. Go for it. Not what USB was designed to do.

6. Serial technology= better suited to longer cable runs. Optical cables coming. 100Meter maximum length. USB need not apply.

I don't want my mouse to be 100m away from my computer. I want it to have the minimal amount of cable to not clutter up my desk but yet still be mobile. 5 meters is enough distance to get my scanner, printer, etc. far enough away to make my desk useable. I don't understand how this is a problem. Nobody has a USB device that would necessitate those kinds of distances away from the computer.

7. Speed...the Firewire spec goes to 3200Mbps.

USB was not built for speed. It was built for simplicity. A bunch of "dumb" devices plug into a computer which controls them. Firewire is made for high bandwidth devices, many of which may operate independently from a computer. USB2 came about because some devices needed more bandwidth. It is a natural progression of technology.

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

A standard which isn't even stadardized. Personally, I find this more of a problem than a benefit, because I find copy protection crap to be invasive and too controlling. DRM, Palladium,
companies crashing computers with audio cds

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire. Did you buy your Apple to have crappy connectivity for crappy peripherals or did you buy The Best ...to run the best. You decide.

<sarcasm>You're right. Damn apple for forcing us to USB. We've paid a horrible price.</sarcasm>
I don't care why firewire devices cost more. It is a non-issue to me. Firewire was made for devices that are typically more expensive- IE stereo systems, Digital Vid Cams, etc. When you get up that far firewire is just a drop in the ocean.


Your arguements consisted of taking the applications of firewire and trying to apply them to USB. That's exactly why there are two different technologies- because one cannot encompass all the benefits! Firewire is not a perfect technology. USB is not a perfect technology. Together they can solve the needs of 99% of users.

 

[shadowfax]

thanks for all the clarification, locovaca.

seriously.

 

[kenohki]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

8. Copy Protected- Firewire support HDTV with 5C copy protection. USB isn't even on the map.

The only reason why you're paying more for Firewire devices is because manufacturers are charging you more. Oxford has affordable chips yet manufacturers will keep soaking you until users stop quibbling over a few dollars and buy the superior connection. Firewire.

I think that the use of FireWire in consumer devices (as you've pointed out above) will help to drive it's adoption as a widespread standard. The consumer electronics industry has pretty much standardized consumer HD content transfers (especially between things like HD TiVo, HD set top boxes, and HD DVD or D-VHS) on 1394 with 5C or DVI with HDCP (and DVI mainly for transmitting the encrypted HD bitstream into the display device).


Because FireWire is emerging as this sort of digital device standard, I would go so far as to predict that FireWire will supplant even USB in usage. There's really only gonna be one winner here folks. You can't argue that USB 2.0 doesn't compete with FireWire. This isn't IDE vs. SCSI. It isn't SCSI vs. Fibre Channel. The people that are saying that FireWire is fine and dandy for high end use and USB is good for low end use need to do some research and see what's going on with this stuff outside the computer arena. One open standard for devices is going to make everyone's life easier.


Afterthought - Think FireWire as the digital equivilant of RCA video cables or audio patch cords.

 

[h'biki]

Ah here we go again. USB2 vs Firewire 1/2

Its a non issue. Yet its been reappearing since USB 2 was annoucned. USB 2 is in INDIRECT competition with Firewire. Devices like scanners suit USB2. Its a low cost consumer interface.

Canon is now shipping scanners ONLY in USB2 configurations. Its an issue of inventory. Why should they manufacture two models of the same scanner and keep BOTH in stock, when the larger portion of their target market is going to be using USB2 over Firewire (Firewire is still not default on many PCs).

Thats why I want USB2 on my mac. I don't want to suddenly be kept out of the peripheral market again. I went through that with my SE and Centris.

That said, USB2 isn't going to replace Firewire. I don't think Digidesign is going to ship a USB2 version of the Digi 002 for instance. Nor is Yamaha going to re-engineer mLAN for USB2. Too many controller issues. Furthermore, Panasonic is going to be putting Firewire2 on its DVCPro decks (25, 50 and HD I believe) which can be controlled by FCP4 *OR* another Firewire device. Professional photographers will still want firewire on their digital cameras so they can go straight to hard drive. There will still be high-speed hard drives with firewire interfaces for these reasons.

Its a non issue in terms of competition. Firewire will lose some markets (scanners, printers, CDRWs etc) to USB2 but thats ok, Firewire 2 is GAINING markets in the audiovisual field.

Consequently, most PCs will ship with USB2 and not FW or FW2. So Apple needs to ship USB2 OR some peripheral maker needs to create USB2->FireWire1/2 interfaces.

It needs to happen at some point, but I think Apple is seeing how the market goes. You never know. People may buy firewire hard drives over USB2 hard drives - the FW market has been existence longer after all. Obviously, its in their interest and the interest of mac users for Apple too try and 'stave off' USB2 for a while so we don't loose access to peripherals.

 

[locovaca]

Originally posted by kenohki



Because FireWire is emerging as this sort of digital device standard, I would go so far as to predict that FireWire will supplant even USB in usage. There's really only gonna be one winner here folks. You can't argue that USB 2.0 doesn't compete with FireWire. This isn't IDE vs. SCSI. It isn't SCSI vs. Fibre Channel. The people that are saying that FireWire is fine and dandy for high end use and USB is good for low end use need to do some research and see what's going on with this stuff outside the computer arena. One open standard for devices is going to make everyone's life easier.

One open standard does not necessarily make thing easier. Firewire was not made to support many of the low end market devices that USB supports. USB was not made to support many of the high end market devices that Firewire supports. Look at the DMCA- one law trying to support two or three separate industries. Look at PCI- one bus doesn't cover the needs of every device (which is why we have AGP, Firewire, etc.). Firewire is not a perfect technology. There is no perfect technology

 

[kenohki]

Originally posted by locovaca


One open standard does not necessarily make thing easier. Firewire was not made to support many of the low end market devices that USB supports. USB was not made to support many of the high end market devices that Firewire supports. Look at the DMCA- one law trying to support two or three separate industries. Look at PCI- one bus doesn't cover the needs of every device (which is why we have AGP, Firewire, etc.). Firewire is not a perfect technology. There is no perfect technology

You've made my case for me. Why boost USB to the 2.0 spec to try and make it compete with FireWire speeds when FireWire already handles high speed transfers like this with a much better feature set?

 

[phillymjs]

USB 2.0 in Macs

If you MUST have USB 2.0 in your G4, buy a PCI card for it. I remember reading a while back that Mac OS X has built-in USB 2.0 support, and a few minutes of googling seems to confirm this.

Having said that, USB 2.0 is not really needed when you have FireWire, which is superior (especially now that FireWire 800 is a shipping product). In fact, USB 2.0 was just Intel's "me too" attempt at FireWire-- that's the only reason it exists, to say, "Look, we have a fast comm bus just like Apple's!"

Only it's not "just like Apple's":
-FireWire is peer-to-peer so the devices can take care of themselves. USB requires a computer to control/manage the devices. That's Intel, giving you the razor (USB) so they can sell you the blades (CPUs).

-FireWire can do things like charge your iPod while transferring data to it, and you can usually daisy-chain the devices together without a hub. USB needs a rat's nest of AC adapters and cables and hubs, or the computer will start bitching about insufficient power on the bus for all the connected devices.

-USB 2 may have a higher top speed (480Mbps) than FireWire 400, but tests have borne out time and time again that FireWire can sustain data transfers close to its peak speed, where USB2 data transfers only spike that high occasionally.

-FireWire has different physical connectors for its 400Mbps and 800Mbps buses, so you know at a glance what you're dealing with-- most decent manufacturers of FireWire 800 devices will probably include the adapter in the box so they can be used on older machines. USB uses the same connectors for both versions, so there's a high probability you'll hook up your USB 2.0 peripherals in a 1.x USB port or otherwise screw things up so the USB 2 peripherals step down to USB 1.x speeds.

~Philly

 

[nuckinfutz]

Guys great Debating here

Lococava and kenohki great job!

Check this out! FW800 has some definite advantages

http://www.barefeats.com/fire34.html

I guess I'm just a not a fan of USB2. I don't give a damn about Canons needs If I'm spending money I want "MY" preferred connection standard or I'll move on to another brand. Scanners don't push enough data at the consumer level to even max out USB2.

The fear is that once Apple supports USB2 then they've effectively removed any benefit of using Firewire as the Developer will simply make USB2 peripherals to run on both platforms...Firewire goes bye bye.

<sigh> It seems History is due to repeat itself however. Humans always gravitate to the cheaper technology depite obvious superiority. VHS/Beta here we come. Have we learned anything?