Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USB 3.0 in Pipeline: Where's FireWire?
Insanely Great Mac ^ | September 29th 2007 | Remy Davison

Posted on 12/07/2007 11:38:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv

Intel's USB 3.0 is set to come on stream and the new standard promises to deliver up to 4.8Gb per second, as Techworld reports. This makes USB 3.0 ten times faster than 480Mb/ps USB 2.0.

USB 3.0 also dwarfs FireWire 400 and 800 speeds - it even outpaces the mooted, but stillborn (at present) FireWire 1600 and 3200 standards, that have been in the works for some time. FireWire does have advantages as a peer-to-peer networking protocol, which supports IP, for example. It can also talk directly to devices like digital video cameras.

But USB and FireWire connectivity is used primarily for hard drives and optical disc drives. Most scanners are USB, while only high-end scanners use FireWire (and really high-end scanners use high-speed SCSI interfaces). Printers generally use USB first and (if networkable) Ethernet second. Not to mention USB on iPods (older iPods can use FireWire or FireWire/USB). And virtually every portable flash drive built

Will USB 3.0 deliver? Maybe. But USB 2.0's purported 480Mb/ps doesn't happen in the real world, as FireWire 400 is faster when put to the test. FireWire 800 - still to break out as a mass market product - is even quicker.

USB, despite improvements, can still be hit-and-miss in terms of the reliability of its connectivity. FireWire is much more dependable.

The USB 3.0 specification is expected to be finalized by the end of the first half of 2008; hardware should start appearing in the second half of the year.

(Excerpt) Read more at insanely-great.com ...


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: 1394; firewire; usb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: dayglored

Thanks!


21 posted on 12/08/2007 2:14:53 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Friday, December 7, 2007_____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I’m still waiting for USB 2.0 to live up to its current speed claims. And can we get rid of this ridiculous bandwidth-sharing architecture? Each port should be max speed, not a fraction of max speed.


22 posted on 12/08/2007 3:49:14 PM PST by Terpfen (It's your fault, not Pelosi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

USB was designed from the ground up to be CHEAP. That’s a good idea when it’s only supposed to run keyboards an mice with a tiny bandwidth and power requirement. The data transmission algorithm didn’t have to be very efficient and several devices can share the same controller without anyone noticing.

But then they tried to make USB fast, kind of hard to do given the architecture. Let’s stick a V8 in a Trabbi.

Firewire was designed from the ground up to be FAST. Efficient transmission algorithm, high bandwidth, no host needed and more than enough power to run a desktop hard drive.


23 posted on 12/08/2007 5:09:36 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; zeugma

Thanks!


24 posted on 12/08/2007 5:47:52 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Friday, December 7, 2007_____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

When I was moving the files off the 4 GB that I’d pulled from the dead rev B iMac, I used one of those outboard cases, which I’d picked a while back for something else; it does both USB 2.0 and Firewire (400). I moved the contents twice, and the Firewire was roughly half-again faster.


25 posted on 12/08/2007 5:52:55 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Friday, December 7, 2007_____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Yeah, Firewire lives up to its name. I had an external hard drive hooked up to my laptop via Firewire up until the port flaked out. I really, truly miss the speed.


26 posted on 12/08/2007 6:44:17 PM PST by Terpfen (It's your fault, not Pelosi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Then they need to take the time to correct USB’s flaws with USB 3.0.


27 posted on 12/08/2007 6:44:54 PM PST by Terpfen (It's your fault, not Pelosi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Then they need to take the time to correct USB’s flaws with USB 3.0.

They're going to want to be backwards compatible, so just like Windows, all the baggage will slow it down. Given that this won't really hit the streets big-time until 2009, eSATA will probably have already won that high-speed niche.

28 posted on 12/08/2007 7:51:36 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

eSATA is still a fantasy as far as I’m concerned. I have yet to see a single computer that supports it.

It’s a shame: my WD MyBook has an eSATA connector. Too bad my 3-year-old Inspiron 6000 doesn’t.


29 posted on 12/08/2007 8:19:04 PM PST by Terpfen (It's your fault, not Pelosi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

“FireWire support for Windows was intentionally done sloppily so that USB could have a fighting chance despite its disadvantages.”

Sloppily? They downright crippled it with XP SP2 and have YET to fix it. Put a FW800 device on the bus, and it reverts to FW100. They did finally release a patch that fixes 1 direction, but still cripples the other at 400. I have no idea if they’ve fixed it in Vista, and have no intention of finding out.

FW has a clear advantage in CPU overhead and transfers where timing is critical. Digital audio is where it’s really gained a major foothold. I’m running discrete 38 channels of 44.1/24 bit audio via firewire myself, and CPU overhead’s barely a blip.


30 posted on 12/08/2007 8:19:34 PM PST by whatexit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Now is that 4.8 Gibibits/sec or 4.8 Gigabits? I may have to sue.


31 posted on 12/08/2007 8:28:48 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

:’)


32 posted on 12/09/2007 5:12:31 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Friday, December 7, 2007_____________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson