Would you like usb3 with your MBP?

[Wotan31]

Usb3 is faster than fw800. Check wikipedia.
But fw has better reliability with streaming (audio, video) than usb2.
In the future these enhancings can also be incorporated to usb3.
Still unknown if they really are implemented.

It has nothing to do with "better reliability". It's about isochronous transfers, which Firewire supports and USB does not. Isochronous transfers are absolutely critical for real-time audio and video editing, which is why all the high-end pro a/v editing gear uses Firewire always, and never USB.

Also, Firewire uses DMA for Direct Memory Access (just like PATA and SATA), while USB is stuck taking the slow route, making IRQ interrupt requests through the host CPU.

The DMA vs. Interrupt mode is partly why Firewire 400 (400 Mbit) achieves significantly faster throughput than USB2 (480 Mbit) despite the 20% data rate advantage that USB2 has. That should tell you right there that the USB protocol really sucks for bulk data transfer - that it has a 20% data rate advantage over Firewire 400 and yet Fw400 still manages to move data faster in the real world. USB protocol simply has waaaay too much overhead to be useful for anything aside from small peripherals like kbd and mouse.

Firewire > USB. Period.

 

[keitherson]

It makes sense if USB3 is adopted as widely as USB2 was. If Lightpeak becomes more popular than the future-proofing of including USB3 would be a waste - that's the problem with "future-proofing", unless you can see into the future, it's next to impossible to be future-proof... we're all just guessing at what we'll be using our computer for/what we'll need on our computer in the future... but yes, assuming that USB3 does succeed (which it very well might), then what you said makes sense.

It is harder and costlier to get people to adapt to something new, when there is an alternative that is backwards compatible. USB3 will still run USB2 and USB. It's not an either/or situation with Light Peak.

The problem is that Apple and Intel are purposely delaying adoption to popularize LP for their own benefit, and in doing so, are forcing people to buy machines with USB2, instead of having both USB3 AND LP.

What is likely to happen is that LP will replace FW, since Apple has been trying to phase out FW for some time. But instead of having FW/USB3 in 2010, we're forced to have FW/USB2, making it completely outdated in a year when USB3 and LP will begin starting.

 

[vant]

What is likely to happen is that LP will replace FW, since Apple has been trying to phase out FW for some time. But instead of having FW/USB3 in 2010, we're forced to have FW/USB2, making it completely outdated in a year when USB3 and LP will begin starting.

Instead, we are most likely having LP for 2010.

Those who need USB devices can run it through LP.

 

[colourfastt]

Why not Firewire 3200 until LP becomes more mainstream?

 

[vant]

Why not Firewire 3200 until LP becomes more mainstream?

Because the people behind Firewire (Apple) are also the people who are behind LP. Apple is trying to push LP to replace USB/miniDP/FW.

 

[Bubba Satori]

To hell with USB3. What a useless development.

Did you forget to take your meds today?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Why not Firewire 3200 until LP becomes more mainstream?

Because even Apple is throwing Firewire under the bus.
New PC mobos are out with USB3.
USB3 peripherals are being announced daily.
LP is two to three years away.

 

[toke lahti]

It has nothing to do with "better reliability". It's about isochronous transfers, which Firewire supports and USB does not. Isochronous transfers are absolutely critical for real-time audio and video editing, which is why all the high-end pro a/v editing gear uses Firewire always, and never USB.

Yes, you found the right term.
And if you look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus
you'll find word "isochronous" 6 times.
So, I believe that isochronous transfer is well inserted in specs, but not implemented in real products. With usb3's transfer rates, it could be well implemented in real products also.

Also, Firewire uses DMA for Direct Memory Access (just like PATA and SATA), while USB is stuck taking the slow route, making IRQ interrupt requests through the host CPU.

The DMA vs. Interrupt mode is partly why Firewire 400 (400 Mbit) achieves significantly faster throughput than USB2 (480 Mbit) despite the 20% data rate advantage that USB2 has. That should tell you right there that the USB protocol really sucks for bulk data transfer - that it has a 20% data rate advantage over Firewire 400 and yet Fw400 still manages to move data faster in the real world. USB protocol simply has waaaay too much overhead to be useful for anything aside from small peripherals like kbd and mouse.

Firewire > USB. Period.

Usb's big overhead isn't issue any more with usb3. There's so much bandwidth to waste. First real world products show over 2 Gbps real speeds. Fw1600 might be as fast, but it's nowhere near to be widely commercialed.
There's also lots of cpu power to waste with irq's.
Usb3 is already faster than fw800 and soon the whole IT industry has adopted it, so prices for usb3 will drop dramatically and then usb3's price/performance ratio against fw will be multiple times better.

I guess that in 2010H2 usb3 is widely used, LP might have first real world products, but very rare and expensive and fw1600 has still no products at all.

If then Apple doesn't still use usb3 and express card is still missing 13" & 15" MBP's and eSata is still missing from all Macs, they are technically starting to be very far from state-of-the-art.