Proof that FireWire isn't going anywhere...

[Voidness]

I'm not sure if someone has posted this before, sorry if this is a repost!

I didn't believe Apple would be dropping FireWire in the first place (iMovie anyone?) But here's real proof, from Apple, that Firewire will stay with the Intel Transition:

http://developer.apple.com/document...reDI/FWDevEndianness/chapter_5_section_1.html

This is a developer document for Firewire device access on an Intel-based Mac, and how to port PowerPC apps that use FireWire to universal binaries.

Everything will be clear in 10 days! Dang, I wish I could go to Macworld!

 

[randas]

Thankyou! I was worried apple was going to do something stupid

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

It's not like there were going to drop FireWire. They created it. And, Apple is the standard for video editing in which most cameras require atleast a FW400 port.

 

[Voidness]

It's not like there were going to drop FireWire. They created it. And, Apple is the standard for video editing in which most cameras require atleast a FW400 port.

Yes, I know. But since there was some "speculation" about this issue, I thought this should be enough to prove otherwise.

 

[job]

Dropping the FW support on the newer iPod models might have added to the speculation...

Good news.

 

[maddav]

Dropping the FW support on the newer iPod models might have added to the speculation...

Good news.

I actually thought that this was the main/only source behind the speculation

 

[thequicksilver]

Yes, I know. But since there was some "speculation" about this issue, I thought this should be enough to prove otherwise.

I don't see how this is enough to prove this. Apple are still going to support Firewire in the same way that they support, say, Microsoft mice. Intel-based Macs are still going to be able to address Firewire, but that doesn't by default mean that all the Intel-based Macs are going to have built-in Firewire.

For different reasons I don't see Apple dropping Firewire in any of their computers any time soon (unless they introduce some kind of nanoBook) - it would make iMovie and existing iSights worthless for a start - but we'll see.

 

[ortuno2k]

I thought Apple drop FW in the 5G iPods to be able to make them thinner.
Of course I could be wrong.

 

[macEfan]

I could't live without firewire... Also they would probally never drop firewire..... target disk mode is so useful

 

[shadowmoses]

Thats really good news i love firewire, if only they could bring it back for the next revision of iPods i would be a happy bunny!!!

Shadow

 

[FireArse]

target disk mode is so useful

Which is exactly why im Keeping my 40GB iPod photo!

FireArse

 

[belvdr]

Thats really good news i love firewire, if only they could bring it back for the next revision of iPods i would be a happy bunny!!!

Shadow

I always thought firewire for ipods was overkill for syncing music. I never saw a difference between USB2 and Firewire when syncing or using it as an external hard drive. The disk can't even put out that much throughput, so it wasn't a bottleneck.

I guess the only thing I see missing is the ability to install OS X on the iPod and use it as a transportable OS for any Mac.

 

[Morn]

Doesn't prove that they won't drop the Fw400 ports and just have Fw800.

 

[FireArse]

I like FW a lot

I never saw a difference between USB2 and Firewire when syncing or using it as an external hard drive. The disk can't even put out that much throughput, so it wasn't a bottleneck.

I couldn't agree with you more. My Girlfriends 6GB Mini always used USB 2.0 to sync and had the same transfer rate. Mind you its pink.

Now syncing an External disk with a USB2.0 and FW400 Caddy is another story - FW400 a good 25% (at least) quicker - we measured it with 3GB files.

Anyway, back to the point - I think the link is a good suggestion that developers would be coding for Intel based machines. I don't think Apple would get rid of FireWire - I even think that dropping support for 1394a would be a bad idea - can you link up a windows machine with a mac through FW400? If so - further reason NOT to drop FW400 on ANY mac.

Anyone got a link of how it's done? Is it through networking - i.e. TCP/IP? I read a report on the IEE Student & Graduate magazine on FireWire's developmen. 6pages in total. Makes a great read. If enoug people are interested i can scan + upload the entire article.

FireArse

 

[lucface]

i wish they would make a better connection though. like that of an eithernet/cat5. cause its not good to have a fire wire get knocked out! especialy when you got a drive pluged in doing transfers or whatever.

 

[mrichmon]

can you link up a windows machine with a mac through FW400? If so - further reason NOT to drop FW400 on ANY mac.

Anyone got a link of how it's done? Is it through networking - i.e. TCP/IP?

You can still use a FW800 port to hook up to a Windows machine, you just need to Windows machine to also support FW800, or you need FW800<->FW400 cable.

Connecting a Mac to Windows using firewire is handled as a network like you suggest. You end up tunneling IP packets over the firewire link. A driver (and free demo) is available at http://www.unibrain.com/1394_products/1394_networking/firenet_pc.htm

Though if you have Gigabit ethernet on each machine then that is less hassle to configure and runs at speeds similar to networking over FW400.

 

[belvdr]

You can still use a FW800 port to hook up to a Windows machine, you just need to Windows machine to also support FW800, or you need FW800<->FW400 cable.

Connecting a Mac to Windows using firewire is handled as a network like you suggest. You end up tunneling IP packets over the firewire link. A driver (and free demo) is available at http://www.unibrain.com/1394_products/1394_networking/firenet_pc.htm

Though if you have Gigabit ethernet on each machine then that is less hassle to configure and runs at speeds similar to networking over FW400.

You can use FW400 ports as well to connect computers as well. FW800 is not required.

GigE is much faster than either Firewire version, given that GigE is 1000Mbps, and FW is 800Mbps or 400Mbps. Not sure how you conclude that GigE is similar to FW400 speeds.

 

[jaw04005]

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel included a 6-pin Firewire ports standard on their new motherboards they release this year. Why not? It seems to fit into their digital media strategy (DV Camcorders, Cable Boxes, etc).

 

[Voidness]

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel included a 6-pin Firewire ports standard on their new motherboards they release this year. Why not? It seems to fit into their digital media strategy (DV Camcorders, Cable Boxes, etc).

They already do:
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/sb/cs-002887.htm

Some have pointed out that Apple might be dropping Firewire on the low-end Macs and keep Firewire 800 for the higher-end ones. If this were the case, the developer document would have mentioned that an app shouldn't assume that Firewire would be always present, and it should first check for a Firewire port.

 

[PlaceofDis]

i understand the reasoning for dropping FW support and usage in the iPods, even though i don't neccissarily agree with it.

but i don't see it going anywhere or leaving the computers. the only possible change may be that the FW400 ports on the high end computers get replaced solely by FW800.

 

[adk]

Just did my own USB vs. Firewire 400 Analysis.

The Experiment: Transferring a 4.07 GB file from my powerbook to my 250GB 7200RPM external drive. Both types of cables were plugged directly into the powerbook.


Firewire 400: Time 2:43, which equals 199 Mbps (half of its max theoretical speed, not bad

USB: Time 5:07, which equals 106 Mbps (less than a quarter of theoretical maximum)


As you can see, Firewire (in this case at least) was about twice as fast as USB.

 

[Counterfit]

Just did my own USB vs. Firewire Analysis.

The Experiment: Transferring a 4.07 GB file from my powerbook to my 250GB 7200RPM external drive. Both types of cables were plugged directly into the powerbook.


Firewire: Time 2:43, which equals 199 Mbps (half of its max theoretical speed, not bad

USB: Time 5:07, which equals 106 Mbps (less than a quarter of theoretical maximum)


As you can see, Firewire (in this case at least) was about twice as fast as USB.

Was that FW400 or 800? Also, Intech SpeedTools has some great tool for maximizing the speed of external drives. It's included with every OWC drive.

 

[adk]

Was that FW400 or 800? Also, Intech SpeedTools has some great tool for maximizing the speed of external drives. It's included with every OWC drive.

my bad, 400

 

[funkychunkz]

I don't think they dropped fw on ipods because it was overkill, but because the hardware would be cheaper. Or maybe the they're dropping it because they are about to replace it with a better standard. They wanted the new ipod to be compatible with it, and not encourage the use of the previous method.

Just did my own USB vs. Firewire 400 Analysis.

The Experiment: Transferring a 4.07 GB file from my powerbook to my 250GB 7200RPM external drive. Both types of cables were plugged directly into the powerbook.


Firewire 400: Time 2:43, which equals 199 Mbps (half of its max theoretical speed, not bad

USB: Time 5:07, which equals 106 Mbps (less than a quarter of theoretical maximum)


As you can see, Firewire (in this case at least) was about twice as fast as USB.

Was the length of the cables the same? You also have to factor in which was transferred first,(information pre-loaded in ram and such)

 

[adk]

Was the length of the cables the same? You also have to factor in which was transferred first,(information pre-loaded in ram and such)

Firewire cable is about 2 meters, USB cable is about 1 meter. I first tried with firewire, then with USB2. This was by no means a scientific experiment, it was just to settle a dispute between my dad and me over which one was faster. I won