All completely correct. Hence the U in USB. Firewire is a much smaller niche than USB (which is kind of like the old ADB). However, given the choice, I would much rather have FW800 or even FW400 for my HD camera and hard drive than USB2.0.
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.
Why does Apple love firewire so much?
- Thread starter Luigi239
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All completely correct. Hence the U in USB. Firewire is a much smaller niche than USB (which is kind of like the old ADB). However, given the choice, I would much rather have FW800 or even FW400 for my HD camera and hard drive than USB2.0.
Actually, Firewire is better in just about every way then USB except for one, which you mentioned, COST. It is cheaper to add USB to a device, and when it and firewire were first being introduced it was an even greater difference.
Also at their introduction, you had Intel pushing USB (obvious reasons) and getting it added to PCs even when they weren't being used, and in some cases couldn't be used.
Now USB is so dominate it doesn't really matter, but firewire could do just about everything that USB can but at a greater cost. I'd like to hear what USB can do that Firewire can't.
Anyways, I was (and sort of still) using a 3G iPod [15GB] with Firewire on my computer. I also Have a Firewire hard drive so both my ports were filled. I am a little sad because my iPhone [8GB] uses USB 2.0 (which I actually added to my comp) which transfers slower. The only good thing is it has less capacity [by about half] so I don't notice as much. I wish it could use firewire.
I think of this entire discussion every time I restore my video iPod - I work with video all day on the job and move massive files around. When I first synced my iPod with my iMac at home, I kept thinking, "why the heck is this taking so long, it's 60GB for gods sake." And then it hit me - our drives at work are on FW800 and my video iPod is coping with USB2. I know Apple made this switch for marketing, size, cost or whatever else came in to the decision making process at the time, but I still miss it, and I can't help but wonder how much time syncing and restoring a 120GB iPod will take.
Well, I just bought two different hard drives--one, a Seagate 500 Gb that OfficeMax had on sale for $119, and a Western Digital MyBook Premium, also 500 Gb. The Seagate was USB only, the WD has Firewire.
The firewire connection was MUCH faster in backing up--it took about a quarter of the time. Plus, on my iMac, it uses one of the FW ports that would otherwise go unused, and leaves free one of the few USB ports for other things.
So I'd say FW is a great thing to have and use.
Bob
The firewire connection was MUCH faster in backing up--it took about a quarter of the time. Plus, on my iMac, it uses one of the FW ports that would otherwise go unused, and leaves free one of the few USB ports for other things.
So I'd say FW is a great thing to have and use.
Bob
My iBook and MBP both have Firewire and transfer at the same speeds. But when I use USB, the iBook has much slower transfer rates since USB is CPU dependent.
They used to be Firewire, and they loaded up faster back then. Still use a 15GB 3rd Gen iPod and an 8GB iPhone, and judging only music upload, the 15GB gets done faster the 8GB. Too Bad. Would have liked a Firewire iPhone.
I'm guessing the Firewire cables Apple used to give us with the iPods doesn't work if you want to sync right? It does charge it though right? *Sigh* there's not much of an advantage there.
As far as I know, Apple doesn't sell thumb drives period. Why would they jump into this industry now?And FYI, Firewire is much faster than USB. My old 4th Gen iPod has proved that time and time again.
This has been hashed out many times -- the theoretical maximum of USB 2 is slightly faster but in the real world, time and again Firewire has proven itself to be faster by a significant margin.
Rodimus Prime said:
You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that an iPod connected via Firewire will sync faster than through a USB 2 connection?
As mentioned already, it all comes down to cost.
And size and complexity of the internal parts. FW requires an on-board controller. That's handy for drives and cameras (what's the max number of daisy-chained devices? 67?), not so much for small portable things.
Also, FW flash drives do exist.
The difference in HDD speed between your work drives and your iPod come into play as well in regards to transfer speeds.
Lethal
Firewire is overkill for all apart from sustained high bandwidth use, such as external hard drives or video transfers and even this is under threat from eSATA - especially on the PC side.
Case in point - webcams. Apple offered one of the very few FW webcams on the market. No longer. It even replaced the internal webcams on its laptops with usb models, with no discernable loss in resolution or performance.
The price of those FW thumbdrives is eyewatering. Techtool also offered a FW thumbdrive with its Protege package. Also not cheap.
Case in point - webcams. Apple offered one of the very few FW webcams on the market. No longer. It even replaced the internal webcams on its laptops with usb models, with no discernable loss in resolution or performance.
The price of those FW thumbdrives is eyewatering. Techtool also offered a FW thumbdrive with its Protege package. Also not cheap.
please spend time to read this
hi i personally prefer firewire than usb2.0. if don mind spend a little time to read this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire
everyone on high speed internet use firewire technology ...FireWire S800T (IEEE 1394c) jusr read and understand more...for those think usb is better than firewire...we are not talking for one point(speed) but multi point thanks..
hi i personally prefer firewire than usb2.0. if don mind spend a little time to read this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire
everyone on high speed internet use firewire technology ...FireWire S800T (IEEE 1394c) jusr read and understand more...for those think usb is better than firewire...we are not talking for one point(speed) but multi point thanks..
just a point on the original post - what's the point on using USB2 instead of FW when to transfer stuff via migration assistant? i mean, it's mac to mac anyway, and almost every mac in the last nine years has had firewire built in...
(and in the case of cables, you can get USB A to A cables, so that's a non issue).
(and in the case of cables, you can get USB A to A cables, so that's a non issue).
just a point on the original post - what's the point on using USB2 instead of FW when to transfer stuff via migration assistant? i mean, it's mac to mac anyway, and almost every mac in the last nine years has had firewire built in...
(and in the case of cables, you can get USB A to A cables, so that's a non issue).
Cost, pure and simple. USB cables are cheater then firewire, at least in my experience.
hardly. i can pick up a FW800-FW800 cable for less than i can pick up a USB A-A cable (which would be required in this situation).
Q: Why does Apple love firewire so much?
A: Apple largely developed what we now call FireWire themselves. It has been built-into most Macs made in the last ten years. It is hardware controlled rather than software controlled, making it less of a hassle to do fun things with. It's faster, even FW400 is faster with large complex stuff (USB 2.0 only "bursts" ahead for a few moments then poops out). It also works as far back as System 7.5.x.
FireWire pwns USB.
A: Apple largely developed what we now call FireWire themselves. It has been built-into most Macs made in the last ten years. It is hardware controlled rather than software controlled, making it less of a hassle to do fun things with. It's faster, even FW400 is faster with large complex stuff (USB 2.0 only "bursts" ahead for a few moments then poops out). It also works as far back as System 7.5.x.
FireWire pwns USB.
its not all that much more expensive than FW. and besides, i would be willing to pay and extra, what $10-$20?? FW is a lot better and more reliable, aslong as it works better than USB ill get it. thus why i choose osx over M$
so true. FW owns! i would choose it anyday. actually someone suggested FW flashdrives, thats an incredible idea!!!!
Not true. They make usb A to A cables. So there would be no need to add a b port to macs.
ivnj
well for firewire slowly dying: i don't know hasn't intel just recently released draft specifications for "Wireless USB" and "USB 3.0" ?
i recall their goal of USB 3.0 was in the range of 4-5 Gbps (that's more than eSATA) and that want mainstream devices to appear in 2009-2010 ... and it's again going to be completely backwards compatible
(the goal for wireless USB is going to be 1 Gbps ... jikes)
i recall their goal of USB 3.0 was in the range of 4-5 Gbps (that's more than eSATA) and that want mainstream devices to appear in 2009-2010 ... and it's again going to be completely backwards compatible
(the goal for wireless USB is going to be 1 Gbps ... jikes)
Yeah, but that move "made" the iPod and ITMS, and without it, we'd have had about 1/4 as many switchers, which means new machines would be less frequent and more costly...
50% of Mac purchasers are buying their first Mac. Wow!
A good trade.