+1
BTW, OWC can eSATA the iMac-see their site.http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/iMac_2010_27/add_eSATA
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USB 3.0 VS Firewire 800
- Thread starter tigereat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+1
BTW, OWC can eSATA the iMac-see their site.http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/iMac_2010_27/add_eSATA
Has anybody even announced a FW3200 device, let alone a FW3200 controller? USB 3.0 will lock up the market by virtue of universal penetration, aided by Intel's decision to have no FW support on its standard chipsets. No, FireWire is walking dead. I guarantee FW16/3200 will never see the light of day. I was at MicroCenter the other day and they had many USB 3.0 and USB/eSATA external enclosures on display, but not a single FireWire one. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the customers there didn't even know what FireWire was and had never seen a FireWire device.
Mark my words, Light Peak will never be anything but vaporware. HDMI device manufacturers have spent too much money pushing the technical disaster that is HDMI to get consumers to switch to an interconnect that obsoletes all their hardware. Ethernet over copper is good to at least 10G using Cat6. SATA 6Gb is already here. There is simply no use case for Light Peak no matter its technical merit.
Never forget that USB is an Intel standard. I bet the FW consortium realized FW3200 was already DOA and there was no point in developing any products based on it. How was the FW consortium to get Intel to include FW3200 support, when Intel wouldn't use FW400 and instead went with the grossly inferior USB2, using its near-monopoly position to make USB essentially completely displace FireWire? With 90+% of all computers unable to use it, to whom were FW3200 device manufacturers going to sell their products?
Yes but...
When I was at Microcenter they had what you said but they also had firewire800, firewire400 and network-based cases but none were really targeted at Mac.
All of the new USB3 cases you're seeing are running non Intel chipsets.
I'd wager Intel being a major partner of Apple would be a little miffed if Apple started using non-Intel USB3 chipsets in their product.
But I read an article the other day (I think it was Ars Technica or Anandtech, I forget which) where the word that Intel's USB3 chipsets have been delayed have caused numerous grumbling in the tech world about the delay. Of course, this was anecdotal information from an un-named Intel engineer but the fact remains there are no Intel USB3 chipsets/drivers publicly available now or on the near term.
Other companies are all too glad to step in but....if Apple wants universal adoption of an interface they'll have to stop expecting a boatload of cash to license it. Give the consumer something better than they already experience and make it an open standard and then you'll clean-up on $ just by ubiquity.
When I was at Microcenter they had what you said but they also had firewire800, firewire400 and network-based cases but none were really targeted at Mac.
All of the new USB3 cases you're seeing are running non Intel chipsets.
I'd wager Intel being a major partner of Apple would be a little miffed if Apple started using non-Intel USB3 chipsets in their product.
But I read an article the other day (I think it was Ars Technica or Anandtech, I forget which) where the word that Intel's USB3 chipsets have been delayed have caused numerous grumbling in the tech world about the delay. Of course, this was anecdotal information from an un-named Intel engineer but the fact remains there are no Intel USB3 chipsets/drivers publicly available now or on the near term.
Other companies are all too glad to step in but....if Apple wants universal adoption of an interface they'll have to stop expecting a boatload of cash to license it. Give the consumer something better than they already experience and make it an open standard and then you'll clean-up on $ just by ubiquity.