FireWire speeds set to quadruple

In article ,
nospam wrote:

> In article ,
> Fred Moore wrote:
>
> > <http://www.news.com/FireWire-speeds-set-to-quadruple/2100-1013_3-6223102
> > .html>
> >
> > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
>
> big deal. esata does that now.

Not quite. It also doesn't support as many devices, provide power, or
allow comparable cabling options. So really FW3200 is a win on almost
every front, barring "it's here now."
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
Fred Moore wrote:

> <http://www.news.com/FireWire-speeds-set-to-quadruple/2100-1013_3-6223102
> .html>

and
http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2007Press/december/12.12.a.htm
Same cables, same connector, same efficient protocol with low overhead


Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
Gregory Weston wrote:

> > > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
> >
> > big deal. esata does that now.
>
> Not quite. It also doesn't support as many devices, provide power, or
> allow comparable cabling options. So really FW3200 is a win on almost
> every front, barring "it's here now."

'it's here now' is a fairly substantial advantage, and you forgot
'cheap.' esata requirs no bridge boards or royalties.

on the other hand, bus power can be useful, but how many laptop drives
can utilize those kinds of speeds? however, one advantage is that it
could be used for networking, surpassing gigabit speeds. i don't see
firewire 800 on too many other devices (read 'none') so why would
firewire 3200 be any different?

and then there's usb3.
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
nospam wrote:

> In article ,
> Gregory Weston wrote:
>
> > > > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
> > >
> > > big deal. esata does that now.
> >
> > Not quite. It also doesn't support as many devices, provide power, or
> > allow comparable cabling options. So really FW3200 is a win on almost
> > every front, barring "it's here now."
>
> 'it's here now' is a fairly substantial advantage, and you forgot
> 'cheap.' esata requirs no bridge boards or royalties.
>
> on the other hand, bus power can be useful, but how many laptop drives
> can utilize those kinds of speeds? however, one advantage is that it
> could be used for networking, surpassing gigabit speeds. i don't see
> firewire 800 on too many other devices (read 'none') so why would
> firewire 3200 be any different?
>
> and then there's usb3.

There _is_ USB3. Or at least there will be. And it's supposed to be
*very* fast. Doesn't deliver as much power over the wire and has some
topology issues.

There are always tradeoffs. Maybe the answer should be: Pick the best
tool for the job.
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
Gregory Weston wrote:

> In article ,
> nospam wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > Gregory Weston wrote:
> >
> > > > > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
> > > >
> > > > big deal. esata does that now.
> > >
> > > Not quite. It also doesn't support as many devices, provide power, or
> > > allow comparable cabling options. So really FW3200 is a win on almost
> > > every front, barring "it's here now."
> >
> > 'it's here now' is a fairly substantial advantage, and you forgot
> > 'cheap.' esata requirs no bridge boards or royalties.
> >
> > on the other hand, bus power can be useful, but how many laptop drives
> > can utilize those kinds of speeds? however, one advantage is that it
> > could be used for networking, surpassing gigabit speeds. i don't see
> > firewire 800 on too many other devices (read 'none') so why would
> > firewire 3200 be any different?
> >
> > and then there's usb3.
>
> There _is_ USB3. Or at least there will be. And it's supposed to be
> *very* fast. Doesn't deliver as much power over the wire and has some
> topology issues.
>
> There are always tradeoffs. Maybe the answer should be: Pick the best
> tool for the job.

Maybe a comparison from an unsuspected source gives an indication of
what to expect:
http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

reading off an IDE disk drive Firewire400 @ 400 Mbps is 33% faster than
USB 2.0 @ nominal 480 Mbps. or for longer files even 70% faster.
This means the efficiency (actual troughput vs nominal speed) is (using
50% faster) roughly 70% better.
The reason from the link above:
"...
FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture
 
€ FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the
peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine
which device can best control a data transfer
 
€ Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the
computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to,
from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system
overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)
...."

If this is to be any indication of the future, USB3 will be specified in
the first half of next year. Assuming 4800 Mbps nominal speed, quite
likely S3200 (the official name for Firewire at 3200 Mbps) is faster in
actual use. As well as not requiring new connectors, as USB3 might well
need if it is going to use optical connections.

FireWire is nice for the user: long cables (100m), any topology (even
rings), bus power, hot-pluggable.
Whether that means that it is better accepted by the market remains to
be seen. I for my part hope for it.

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
TH O wrote:

> In article ,
> Fred Moore wrote:
>
> > <http://www.news.com/FireWire-speeds-set-to-quadruple/2100-1013_3-6223102
> > .html>
> >
> > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
> >
> > --Fred
>
> It sounds great but considering Apple's history with Firewire, only the
> top of the line models will have the new version, and even those models
> will take an eternity to be released. It is mindboggling to me that the
> low end models still only provide FW400 and Apple continues limiting FW
> speed based on the model cost. Could you imagine the uproar if Dell's
> low end computers only had USB1 and you were required to buy $2,000
> models to get USB2 included?

Except that FW400 and FW800 are not that different when accessing a
laptop's internal hard drive, or not at all if you connect a camera
recorder
Downloading photographs from a camera on the other hand with USB1 is
painful.

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
TH O wrote:

> It sounds great but considering Apple's history with Firewire, only the
> top of the line models will have the new version, and even those models
> will take an eternity to be released. It is mindboggling to me that the
> low end models still only provide FW400 and Apple continues limiting FW
> speed based on the model cost. Could you imagine the uproar if Dell's
> low end computers only had USB1 and you were required to buy $2,000
> models to get USB2 included?

Firewire is better the USB2 already. Firewire II would be nice. Hey
maybe when the new Firewire comes out they can put II on the low range.
Have to have something to distinguish the top.
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

nospam writes:
>
> on the other hand, bus power can be useful, but how many laptop drives
> can utilize those kinds of speeds? however, one advantage is that it
> could be used for networking, surpassing gigabit speeds. i don't see
> firewire 800 on too many other devices (read 'none') so why would
> firewire 3200 be any different?

FW800 is primarily found on computers and hard drives. I haven't seen
it on other devices, but that makes sense, because other devices
probably couldn't take advantage of the higher data rate.

One big advantage FW3200 will have over eSATA is that eSATA requires a
port multiplier device (typically built-in to a RAID chassis) if you
want more than one drive on a port. FW, by its design, at any speed,
allows you to chain multiple devices off of a port without any
additional hardware. (Hubs add convenience, but are not necessary for
this.)

-- David
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple 

In article ,
Gregory Weston wrote:

> In article ,
> nospam wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > Gregory Weston wrote:
> >
> > > > > 3.2Gbps? Eee Gads!
> > > >
> > > > big deal. esata does that now.
> > >
> > > Not quite. It also doesn't support as many devices, provide power, or
> > > allow comparable cabling options. So really FW3200 is a win on almost
> > > every front, barring "it's here now."
> >
> > 'it's here now' is a fairly substantial advantage, and you forgot
> > 'cheap.' esata requirs no bridge boards or royalties.
> >
> > on the other hand, bus power can be useful, but how many laptop drives
> > can utilize those kinds of speeds? however, one advantage is that it
> > could be used for networking, surpassing gigabit speeds. i don't see
> > firewire 800 on too many other devices (read 'none') so why would
> > firewire 3200 be any different?
> >
> > and then there's usb3.
>
> There _is_ USB3. Or at least there will be. And it's supposed to be
> *very* fast. Doesn't deliver as much power over the wire and has some
> topology issues.
>
> There are always tradeoffs. Maybe the answer should be: Pick the best
> tool for the job.

USB is a very simple synchronous protocol that doesn't work well for
anything that can't respond instantly. It's perfect for mice, solid
state drives, and appliance control but it performs poorly with
mechanical hard drives. I don't see how USB 3 will fix that while
maintaining backwards compatibility.

The USB organization at www.usb.org has all of their USB 3 details
behind a password prompt. USB 3 could be a tough sell until mainstream
solid state storage reaches the 100GB range.

Along the same lines, I don't foresee any Firewire mice coming along

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
 >> Stay informed about: FireWire speeds set to quadruple