Posted on 12/07/2007 11:38:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Thanks!
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.
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.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Now is that 4.8 Gibibits/sec or 4.8 Gigabits? I may have to sue.
:’)
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.