FireWire Spec to Boost Data Speeds to 3.2 Gbps 223
Stony Stevenson writes "A new set of data transfer specs may reach new Firewire speed records. The new transfer version is called S3200 and builds on the earlier specification approved by the IEEE.' The technology will be able to use existing FireWire 800 cables and connectors while delivering a major boost in performance. The new spec also will let users interconnect various home-networking appliances via coax cable, linking HDTVs with set-top boxes, TVs, and computers in various rooms around a home or office. The new release enables the transmission of FireWire data over distances of more than 100 meters. Home entertainment centers are likely to be an early application.'"
I would just like a single standard... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah -- so what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've read a variety of posts about the problems with FireWire (see here [pcstats.com] and here [theappleblog.com] from what I found on Google), and the big problem is that FireWire didn't become a de facto standard seven or eight years ago when it was really needed. These days, it seems like few computers other than Macs ship with FireWire standard, and I've never seen a laptop in the wild outside of Macs with a six-pin FireWire 400 port, let alone 800.
I've heard this is chiefly due to Apple's initial intransigence regarding licensing; they demanded $1 per computer to use the "FireWire" name, making other device makers really angry [eetimes.com]. Considering how slim hardware margins are, no one was going to go for it. FireWire 400 is still technically superior to USB 2.0 in many ways, even today, but it's never reached the market penetration it needs, and now USB 2.0 is "good enough" for most purposes.
I use a Mac and so do many family members, and I've long counseled them to get only FireWire drives for backups. When Leopard came out, some were shopping for drives, and I found that I could not find FW400/USB 2 drives for as little as plain USB 2.0 drives. In other words, the FireWire premium for HDs appears to be at least $30. Not a good sign for market penetration.
Now FW 3200 is being discussed when FW 800 already seems dead on arrival in consumer land, and only supported to the limited extent it is by Apple. Not making it backwards compatible with FW400 was an idiotic decision that ensured whatever chance it had in the market was gone. In the meantime, eSATA and the like have come along and perhaps obviated the need for many FireWire applications altogether.
Re:I would just like a single standard... (Score:5, Interesting)
Firewire is fast and cost more.
So they both existed. One was good for mice and keyboards, one was good for digital video and external hard drives.
Then USB2 came out which is almost as fast as firewire, and the lines got blurry.
Firewire was still considerably better as a technology. It does a lot of its own processing while usb2 offloads a lot of processing to the host system... so firewire drives don't tie up the CPU the way a USB2 one does. Firewire supports more simultaneous devices, and seems to have fewer issues with power as well. It also doesn't have stupid rectangular connectors that users will try upside down 50% of the time.
Then Firewire 3200 was announced and santify was restored.
USB2 is slow and cheap.
"Firewire-3200" is fast and costs more.
Do we 'need' usb? no. We could get by on just firewire. But usb is cheaper and a penny saved is a penny earned.
Re:Too Little Too Late (Score:3, Interesting)
With that said, CPU utilization will indeed be a HUGE concern since USB 3.0 is so fast. The relatively minor CPU overhead of USB 2.0 will give way to CPU stalling overhead unless USB 3.0 addresses it. There's not enough information to make a statement about this, so we'll have to wait for more information to be released.
Does it matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista's firewire implementation is the pits. I think TI spec controllers basically didn't work at all even though the cards were recognized (maybe it was the other spec). MS recently released a hotfix that remedied some of the problems, but the controllers were then only working up to 100mbps and not 400 even with registry settings set to 400. Getting 12MB/s to an external hard disk instead of 48MB is pretty ghetto.
Also, MS recently released a technote saying that IP over Firewire wasn't an oversight in Vista. It is a feature that will never be re-implemented.
The 800lb gorilla has left the building and I don't think Linux and OSX computers will be enough to keep the market for firewire devices robust except.
Re:I would just like a single standard... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen the same thing on my MacBook Pro with my external drive. FireWire 400 is maybe 25% faster, FireWire 800 is 50% faster (same drive). The big thing is CPU utilization though. Maxing out the disk on FireWire 800 is no problem. Very little CPU usage (maybe under 10%, this is based on a little graph, I've never looked at hard numbers). Running it over USB has a very noticeable CPU impact.
FireWire is great at what it was made for. USB is very good at what it was designed for (mice, keyboards) and weak at things it was forced to do (hard drives).
It's all Intel's fault. They put USB on everything, but didn't put FireWire on anything until very recently, if they even have by now. So USB "won".
Its like a VCR... (Score:4, Interesting)
USB 2.0 = Super VHS
FireWire = Beta - technically superior but doomed due to lack of marketplace penetration.
Seems to me that the iPod was the first real killer Firewire app for the masses (yeah, video and audio pro's had their own killer apps for Firewire, but they didn't represent enough of the marketplace for that to matter. If Apple had kept the iPod's Firewire only devices (as were the first generations) something would have had to give. Either the iPod would have been DOA (in the PC world at least, since every new Mac has had at least one Firewire port for years), or PC manufacturers would have been forced to start making Firewire the standard due to demand.
Re:I think Apple.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have two older LaCie disks on a FW800 chain. They are the triple-interface version with FW400, USB2 and two FW800 ports. With FW800, I can plug both disks into a laptop at the same time with a single cable (there's another FW800 cable strung between the two) and get 30MB/s copying from one disk to the other (like I said, these disks are a few years old now). The lack of FW800 on the old MacBook Pros was the reason I delayed upgrading my PowerBook for so long.
FireWire is also a good way of adding an extra network connection between a pair of Macs. If you're already using the wired and wireless adaptors you can string a FireWire cable between the two and use IP over FireWire. I tend to do this when I want to copy files between two machines that already have network settings for the other connections that I don't want to disrupt.
HDTVs and set-top boxes people (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would I pay $100 for an HDMI cable to connect a Blu-ray/HD-DVD to my HDTV when I could use a $4 coax cable instead! PLUS, you can send the signal over 100 meters... with any hope, there will be splitters so that I can send a movie/broadcast from my cable providers set-top box to EVERY tv in my entire house.
Step away from your PC a moment and consider the possibilities this brings to the Home Entertainment industry!
Better yet.... 3.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Geeks get the 400 vs 800 reference, but I think nongeeks get it completely. Sure 400 is not as good as 800, but what does that mean compared to USB?
USB is 1.0 and 2.0. Firewire should be 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. Why? Because the general masses see version digits as newer = better. USB is only on 2.0? But Firewire is on 3.0? Gee, that must mean Firewire is more advanced!
Geeks know better, but you don't tell only to the geeks, do you? Besides, versioning for the geeks just makes it easier to support.
FireWie over RJ-45 / Cat5e (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm curious to know if the new 3.2 Gbps document allows for Cat5e, or whether you can only use it over the FW800 cables.
USB is NOT good for webcams unless they're close. (Score:3, Interesting)
I beg to differ.
I wired my new (2001) house with a couple runs of cat-5E from the comp room to each corner, expecting inexpensive single-chip cameras to become available to be used for security cams.
Well they became available, all right. But all the cheap ones were USB, not Ethernet, and USB has a distance limit suitable for a workstation's desk rather than a house.
If it was just an electrical issue I could have built suitable level-shifters, baluns, etc. to extend the reach. But the limit is apparently timing of the poll/response rather than just signal integrity, so I'm hosed.
In fairness:
- There are ethernet webcams - but they're not cheap.
- There are active USB extenders to bridge USB to cat-5/5e and back for long runs - but they cost more than the cameras and I'd need one for each corner.
- I haven't had the spare round-TUITs to look into whether the timing issue is programmable in the driver or hardwired into the chips...
Firewire chaining and networking (Score:3, Interesting)