external hard drive: firewire or usb2.0?

[RightHere]

First off, I NEVER said that that it didn't exist if I didn't know about it. I doubt that I've seen every PC peripheral ever made. I could argue that I haven't seen many firewire devices because few of them are ever seen outside of CES/COMDEX, but that would just be mean

The DV->HD link you provide was interesting. Thank you. I had not heard of that before. I'll admit that I was wrong about that point. But it appears to just be a very small number of DV cameras and a very small number of HD's (maybe one of each). If that's the only example you can provide for connecting 2 1394 devices together, then that hardly seems like an important selling point for the technology. BTW, USB has a similar specification called USB On-The-Go.
You can plug some devices into some other devices. Not all of them.

As for the Mitsu thing, sorry I got the name wrong. I called it the "NetCommand" module. I guess they are still calling it the "Promise" module. Whatever it is, it's a 1394 interface on your TV. I'm glad we agree that you can't plug a HD into it.

As for the iPod, of course I meant via firewire. Heck, it was YOUR example! The point I was making was that you probably can't plug it into a stereo via Firewire and have it play music (and it would be pretty tough - but not impossible - to find a receiver that had a firewire port anyway).

Your argument on the dishwasher is ludicrous. As for the scanner, I'm talking about connecting firewire devices without a PC. I'm presenting examples of cases where you can't do it. You bring up another great point about them not being designed to work together. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make!! Today, in almost all cases, you NEED a PC of some sort in the firewire chain.

The article on DVD-Audio is interesting. No specific mention of what hardware supports the standard yet. They mention that it may be 9 months to a year before we see the connection on a receiver. This wouldn't be the first time that we've heard that firewire ports will be on all consumer a/v gear within a year. That's why I tried to focus on devices that were available today.

You think MY examples were stupid?? At least I'm presenting practical examples of real-world 1394 devices. You REALLY had to dig to find the links you pointed to!

USB 2.0 would work fine for mlan (S200). I'm pretty sure that there are similar devices from other companies today. It would probably work well for HAVi too, since you are really going to use one device (like a TV w/ NetCommand) to control all of the other devices on the bus. Any other devices available that use HAVi besides the TV's from Mitsubishi? I've been waiting for HAVi to take off for a long time. What's holding it back?

 

[addragyn]

First off, I NEVER said that that it didn't exist if I didn't know about it. I doubt that I've seen every PC peripheral ever made. I could argue that I haven't seen many firewire devices because few of them are ever seen outside of CES/COMDEX, but that would just be mean

You could say that about a lot of stuff.


But it appears to just be a very small number of DV cameras and a very small number of HD's (maybe one of each). If that's the only example you can provide for connecting 2 1394 devices together, then that hardly seems like an important selling point for the technology. BTW, USB has a similar specification called USB On-The-Go.

The FireStore works with all the DV gear I'm familiar with. It's not limited to one disk, "Daisy-chain up to 8 FireWire (IEEE-1394) hard drives together for extremely long, uninterrupted record times." I did not know about USB OTG. But, you want to talk about nonexistent products?! Even with OTG USB2 still doesn't have the capabilities of FireWire (see tech brief below).

As for the Mitsu thing, sorry I got the name wrong. I called it the "NetCommand" module. I guess they are still calling it the "Promise" module. Whatever it is, it's a 1394 interface on your TV. I'm glad we agree that you can't plug a HD into it.

Here's somebody who did plug a Sony camcorder into their Promise module and got video and control of the camcorder, with the TV remote.


As for the iPod, of course I meant via firewire. Heck, it was YOUR example! The point I was making was that you probably can't plug it into a stereo via Firewire and have it play music (and it would be pretty tough - but not impossible - to find a receiver that had a firewire port anyway).

The point is it's not outside the FireWire spec. It's up to the implementor. Receivers with FireWire/1394 ports have been around for years. Look at this pitcute of the back of a B&K AVR 507, far left by the power sockets. If you are in the Big Easy the first week of May you can see a 1394 home entertainment network demonstration.


Today, in almost all cases, you NEED a PC of some sort in the firewire chain.

For the uses you have in mind yes. I shown a few where that isn't the case.


You think MY examples were stupid?? At least I'm presenting practical examples of real-world 1394 devices. You REALLY had to dig to find the links you pointed to!

You had a list of random devices and wanted to know whay you can't connect a hard drive to them. First, it's not a limitation of FireWire that is preventing that from happening. The fact that some do exist is proof of that. Second, that others don't exist is simply because the market hasn't provided them. If you wanted to make you living selling hard drive that connect to scanners you just need to write the code. The interface to do it has already been developed. IMO there's just no business case for it.

To the people working on the stuff I linked it's just as real-world as the computer you're reading this on.


USB 2.0 would work fine for mlan (S200).

No it wouldn't.


I'm pretty sure that there are similar devices from other companies today. It would probably work well for HAVi too, since you are really going to use one device (like a TV w/ NetCommand) to control all of the other devices on the bus. Any other devices available that use HAVi besides the TV's from Mitsubishi? I've been waiting for HAVi to take off for a long time. What's holding it back?

USB2 also would not work for HAVi. I did put a link of FireWire devices above. HAVi is present on prosumer level equiptment. I think aprehension about piracy, and the fact that HDTV hasn't taken off have slowed HAVi.


This tech brief is an easy read that highlights some fundamental differences between USB and FireWire. It has some FireWire 800 (1394b) info. as well. Protocols have been improved, new medias have been added, and my favorite is the ability to loop your FW800 chain back to your computer for redundancy. Very cool for doing live/real-time stuff.

 

[RightHere]

Ah, I see. So the FireStore is a device that allows you to connect a DV camera directly to a HD. So you can either have an expensive piece of proprietary hardware (the FireStore), or you can use a PC. Seems like the PC would be the better option here. Also, seems odd that there would be a limit of 8 HD's on this thing. (And man, are they trying to stick it to people with their cable prices! $245 for a 10m cable? Ouch!)

As for OTG, I guess I edited my message before posting last night. I meant to call it a similarly lame way to claim that you don't need a PC in the mix.

I don't care about plugging the camera into the TV. I'm talking about taking the HD and plugging it into the tv. Can you do it? NO! You can plug SOME devices into a FEW others, but most of the time you need a PC for there to be any way to transfer data between the two devices.

Did that B&K upgrade ever ship? The last time I looked at that receiver (gotta be more than a year ago now), my understanding was that this was a future upgrade. Or maybe that was some other high end receiver. So...what does that port get you? What devices can you plug into the receiver?

I won't be able to attend WinHEC. But it's good to hear someone making 1394 speakers again. I just hope they actually produce them. Also, you can bet that a PC will definitely be involved in the device chain here.

As for the devices, I didn't list "a lot of random devices". I listed real-world devices with a Firewire interface that I could go to CompUSA and purchase today. I never said that it was a limitation of 1394 that you couldn't plug the devices together. But I am trying to get people to stop buying the "it's better because you don't need a PC" garbage. I've provided clear examples of why this just isn't the case, no matter what Apple wants you to believe.

Let's go back and look at your so called "real-world" examples:
DVD-Audio player: Here's a better link

Looks like the firewire cable will carry audio only. So you've replaced your fiber optic cable with a 1394 cable. Don't see the gain here.

Also, the Pioneer receiver will accept DVD Audio only.

Mindready: Uh, no clue what this is. I browsed the website for like 30 minutes. I looked at a bunch of press releases. I STILL have no clue what they do. Looks like they write a lot of press releases, lose a lot of money and develop reference platforms. I don't see a single shipping product that they are responsible for. The press releases make my head spin. I got tired of digging for something interesting.

InFlight Entertainment: Nobody is using it, as far as I can tell. But I guess that defines 1394 in a nutshell. Also, it's purpose is to provide internet access to people on a plane. There are PC's in the device chain. All of the articles I read on this said that it should be ready to take off by the end of 2001. I don't think we'll see this anytime soon due to the state of the airline industry.

Firestation: Ok, a good example. 1 for 4 ain't bad. Why exactly wouldn't USB 2.0 work here? You didn't explain.

Why won't USB 2.0 work for HAVi devices? Most 1394 A/V devices are S100 or S200 anyway. Seems perfect to me. You
need a consistent interface, and software on a computer would be able to provide that to you.

I REALLY wish I could find another rant I already posted here about that Apple tech brief. Guess I have to start from scratch.

Data xfer up to 800Mbps
- Can't argue with raw speed. 1394b is faster. But as someone else on the thread pointed out, the
throughput is zero if your PC doesn't have 1394b ports

Distances up to 100 meters
- Yes, but at what speeds? Not S800 or above. Why not just use ethernet? And BTW, ethernet is already faster.

Plug and play connectivity
- USB actually wins here. All of your devices will continue to function even when you plug a new device in. Don't believe that's true for 1394, so it's really not a hot pluggable bus. If you are so inclined, you can also attach more devices to the bus. The 4.5m cable length for common PC applications is also less than USB's 5.0m length.

Highly efficient architecture
- Uh, ok. So they prove that it will be faster than 480MBps. Big challenge.

Compatibility with current Firewire products
- Actually, this is only partially true. There's a new connector defined. So at a minimum people will need a new cable for their devices.

Real-time data delivery
- Nothing listed here sounds any different than USB. They both have the concepts of iso and async devices.

On-bus power
- Another commonly noted "win" for 1394. Again, it's garbage. Look at most DV Cameras. Look at the B & K receiver you pointed me at. They have 4 pin connectors. These connectors do not provide power. Maybe this will change with 1394b. There's a long list of devices that source power from USB: keyboards,mice, joysticks, scanners, hard drives and speakers. Then there are devices that don't do anything on the USB bus except grab power: cell phone/PDA chargers, lights, fans, toothbrushes, coffee warmers, blankets and even a razor. I don't see these devices coming out with 1394 connectors.

More advanced than USB 2.0
- Sounds like "1394's dad could kick USB 2.0's dad's butt" to me. Meaningless info.

Support for a wide range of devices
- There are already more USB 2.0 devices in the market than Firewire, and it's been in the market for less than 2 years (compared to what, almost 7 for 1394? I see that the spec is dated 95, but not sure when the first devices came out). There are USB 2.0 devices available in each of the categories that they list (and USB 1.1 devices available in most of the categories).

 

[snidy1]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Can i interject and say, it doesn't matter, cause your HDD isn't going to transfer at those speeds anyways.

That's what I was thinking

 

[addragyn]

RightHere I don't know if you're being obstinate or ??? If you're troling then I took the bait. If not you'll find a few responses below.

FireWire is absolutely technologically superior to USB or USB2. The only point USB wins is the maximum number of devices. Which is why I said "Firewire can do stuff USB can't in places USB can't go."

The list you came up with was essentially, why can't X connect to a FireWire hard drive? When in fact when there was a market for X to connect to a hard drive the product existed(FireStore). The fact that I can't fill my motorcyle up with propane and drive to Sturgis is not evidence that propane is no good. It's the same logic as a little child playing hide'n'seek who stands in middle of the room, eyes closed, sure nobody can see him since he can see knowbody. A lack of proof does not another proof make.


So the FireStore is a device that allows you to connect a DV camera directly to a HD. So you can either have an expensive piece of proprietary hardware (the FireStore), or you can use a PC. Seems like the PC would be the better option here.

Your statement was "Can you plug a HD into your DV camera? Nope." Your rhetorical was wrong. What you are doing above is "moving the goalposts". I'll bite anyways since this is an easy one. It's useful to capture directly to a disk because it means no digitizing. It's useful because it allows somebody to film for a long damn time. You can get a deeper understanding just by reading the reviews on the FireStore page. One reviewer concludes with "I suspect this is one of those devices that will change our workflow and make us wonder how we ever lived without it in a very short time..." High praise from the same fellow who also mentions Fred Smith getting a D on a college paper that suggested an overnight delivery service as a business. Fred went on to found FedEx.


But I am trying to get people to stop buying the "it's better because you don't need a PC" garbage. I've provided clear examples of why this just isn't the case, no matter what Apple wants you to believe.

You have provided examples, but they were wrong. Technologically FireWire is better than USB. Not needing a host is one of those advantages. I've explained why and linked to more of that same. It's redundant to do it again. The proof is out there for the finding. It's in the spec and consequentially in the implementations.

If you have a problem with Apple and by extension with FireWire. Then you're a troll and not a bad one.


Mindready: Uh, no clue what this is. I browsed the website for like 30 minutes. I looked at a bunch of press releases. I STILL have no clue what they do. Looks like they write a lot of press releases, lose a lot of money and develop reference platforms. I don't see a single shipping product that they are responsible for. The press releases make my head spin. I got tired of digging for something interesting.

Again with the negative logic. You don't undestand MindReady, or their website, so therefore MindReady is inconsequential. They're got a blurb right on the front page, "Leading supplier of innovative test engineering, manufacturing automation and real-time communications solutions, Mindready has developed a unique expertise in helping its OEM and EMS clients design, manufacture and test their complex electronic products. Mindready offers turnkey solutions to the telecommunications, automotive and aerospace industries." Here's a list of companies that do similar work. These are engineering companies, it's safe to say they did not incorporate FireWire because Apple told them to. Does USB even have anything like IICP(pdf)?


InFlight Entertainment: Nobody is using it, as far as I can tell. InFlight Entertainment: Nobody is using it, as far as I can tell. But I guess that defines 1394 in a nutshell. Also, it's purpose is to provide internet access to people on a plane. There are PC's in the device chain.

At least your honest about being unsure in this instance. Again I said "Firewire can do stuff USB can't in places USB can't go" and you questioned that. There are fundamental reason why USB could not be used in this application. Show me how USB or USB2 would be suitable in place of 1394.

Firestation: Ok, a good example. 1 for 4 ain't bad. Why exactly wouldn't USB 2.0 work here? You didn't explain.

Because all the camcorders have FireWire on them! Because USB2.0 can't chain 8 devices.


Why won't USB 2.0 work for HAVi devices? Most 1394 A/V devices are S100 or S200 anyway. Seems perfect to me.

Tell me why USB would work for HAVi. What does the data rate being S100 or S200 have to do with USB?


You need a consistent interface, and software on a computer would be able to provide that to you.

What does this have to do with the interface?


I REALLY wish I could find another rant I already posted here about that Apple tech brief.

If this is really about loving or hating Apple then your insistence that FireWire can't possibly have any advantages over USB is easily dismised.


Why not just use ethernet? And BTW, ethernet is already faster.

The comparision is ridiculous. You need to do some reading. Ethernet is NOT faster.


USB actually wins here. All of your devices will continue to function even when you plug a new device in. Don't believe that's true for 1394, so it's really not a hot pluggable bus.

Both are hot pluggable. This is just outright wrong.


There's a new connector defined. So at a minimum people will need a new cable for their devices.

Every current shipping FW800 systems also has 1394a ports. So while you can definitely buy an adapter cable, you don't "need" to.


Nothing listed here sounds any different than USB. They both have the concepts of iso and async devices.

Need to do some more reading. "USB uses a "bit stuffing" protocol in which the clock is recovered from the data, while Firewire has separate clock and data signals. This requires up to around 30% of the apparent bandwidth on USB (either 1.1 or 2) to be filled with "stuffing" to ensure enough 0-to-1 and 1-to-0 transitions to keep the clock recovery circuits from losing their place." link


Another commonly noted "win" for 1394. Again, it's garbage. Look at most DV Cameras. Look at the B & K receiver you pointed me at. They have 4 pin connectors. These connectors do not provide power.

Wow. Are you be facetious? 1394 is not on either device to supply or provide power. I'm not dissapointed I can't jumpstart my car from the 1394 port on my camcorder. Maybe I just have low expectations.


There's a long list of devices that source power from USB: keyboards,mice, joysticks, scanners, hard drives and speakers. Then there are devices that don't do anything on the USB bus except grab power: cell phone/PDA chargers, lights, fans, toothbrushes, coffee warmers, blankets and even a razor. I don't see these devices coming out with 1394 connectors.

What's you point? I never said USB can't/won't/doesn't supply bus power. The reason you don't see keyboards and mice coming with FireWire connectors is because they don't need 400Mbps of bandwidth. Duh. OTOH you can find high-end printers and scanners which would've previoulsy had a SCSI interface now posses both a SCSI and FireWire. That fact that somebody has tapped the power leads on a USB connector and hooked a toothbrush to them impresses me not. You did mention hard drives which is, well, wrong. USB nor FireWire can adequately power a 3.5" drive. I do have a few 2.5" drives in USB2/1394 boxes and those will run just fine on FireWire. If I plug them into USB I need to emply an AC adapter or use the adapter which sucks power from a PS2 port also. Here's why: USB & USB2: .5A/5v (max), Firewire: 1.25A/12V (max).


There are already more USB 2.0 devices in the market than Firewire, and it's been in the market for less than 2 years (compared to what, almost 7 for 1394? I see that the spec is dated 95, but not sure when the first devices came out). There are USB 2.0 devices available in each of the categories that they list (and USB 1.1 devices available in most of the categories).

If you're going to make that claim some numbers would probably be good. Without a doubt there is a greater volume of USB peripherals, but actual different devices I don't believe it. The reason for USB2s proliferation is simple, Intel made a power play. They used their presence to force an inferior, redundant interface onto the maket when a superior technology had existed for years. Intel makes CPUs. USB requires a host. FireWire does not. Hmmm. Not that it makes FireWire's technological advantage over USB2 any less signifigant.

----

Can i interject and say, it doesn't matter, cause your HDD isn't going to transfer at those speeds anyways.

It is possible to have more than one device on the bus. And, while not common on the consumer market FireWire RAID systems are marketed to professional users.

 

[RightHere]

I am neither trolling nor being obstinate. I'm pointing out that your data is flawed.

I think you need a better definition of "technologically superior". You use it throughout the rant. It's the same lame argument as the "my dad can kick your dad's butt" example I pointed to in the Apple doc.

I never said that firewire wasn't good because you couldn't plug x device into y device and expect them to function. I was simply pointing out that this alleged "advantage" of firewire over USB 2.0 is BS. We seem to agree on this point.

There is an adequate amount of proof that most 1394 devices are useless when plugged into other 1394 devices
(unless there's a computer in the mix). Your examples (motorcycle and little child) are getting even more ridiculous.

As for the firestore, I'm not moving the goalposts. You mentioned that you can plug a DV camera into a HD directly. In reality, it looks like it requires some other piece of equipment. I suggest that you use a PC as this piece of equipment since it will be much more useful.

I believe that only one of my examples is wrong. You've admitted yourself that most devices have zero functionality when plugged into some other devices. This is due to implementation choices, not spec issues. But if nobody is taking advantage of this, this can't be touted as one of the big advantages of firewire over USB. No matter where the issue lies, the fact remains that you CANNOT use most 1394 devices in a peer to peer manner without the benefit of a computer. I don't understand why you continue to argue with me on this when we agree.

I named Apple in that statement because they have the "technical brief" listed on their website, so clearly they are the ones trying to push the lies. This has zero to do with any emotional attachments.

Mindlogic: Uh, it wasn't negative logic. I stated that I couldn't figure out WTF the device was, and that reading the data they provided on the site didn't provide any additional insight into what they do. I got bored trying to figure it out. I stated what I got out of the page to give you an opportunity to explain what they do. I'm trying to get rid of all of the marketing rhetoric in that statement you posted, but it's just too thick. Yes, USB has similar specs defined (see link) If this is the best example you can provide for a device that proves that 1394 is better, then it's really a sad day for 1394.

IFE: I didn't admit defeat. You're asking me to prove that it doesn't exist. I can't do that. Isn't that what you were accusing me of earlier? My primary point in my series of messages has been that you need a PC. There are numerous PC's in the chain in the IFE example. Score another one for me I guess.

There are camcorders out now that have USB 2.0 ports on them. You're right that USB 2.0 can't chain 8 devices. It can go a hell of a lot further than that!!

HAVi: USB 2.0 is a high speed peripheral interface on computers. The main goal of HAVi is to have a common method to control all of your home A/V devices (this includes an interface as well as the underlying communication protocol to
transfer data). Current receivers have dozens of buttons, and are way outside the grasp of your average consumer to ever be able to operate. But you can put a pretty GUI interface on it to only expose the functionality that you really need. Since they won't all talk to each other, you'll need a PC to connect them together. Since you need the PC, the GUI should be there too. Otherwise you end up with all of the CE companies making their own GUI's (and you don't want to learn a bunch of new menus for your cool new home A/V gear, do you?). USB 2.0 can handle the bandwidth needed for all of these devices.

I don't know what message you are reading. I'm providing examples where firewire doesn't live up to the hype that you (and many other people) are promoting. I never said that firewire doesn't have any advantages over USB. In my last message, I even admitted that 1394b was faster. That's about the only argument on the tech brief where I see firewire as a clear winner.

I mentioned ethernet because one of the items in the tech brief is the distances supported by 1394b. Suggesting someone use ethernet for an application like this is far from ridiculous.

As for ethernet not being faster, uh, even Apple says that they are slower than Gigabit Ethernet. Quote from the tech brief: "...and FireWire 800 comes close to the speed on 1000BASE-T". Maybe you should've read this doc before you sent the link out. It hasn't been too challenging for me to blow holes in it.

You need to get a source other than ArsTechnica. 30% is a worst case scenario.

As for power, I was being serious. It is a highly touted "advantage" of 1394. Again, how can you say that the technology is better if few devices bother to support the feature??

For the drives, you are flat out wrong. I have seen bus powered USB hard drives. And I don't mean with the PS/2 dongle for power either...I mean purely USB powered. I'd send you a pointer to one, but I can't recall the vendor off the top of my head. Sorry. I know that it was a laptop-sized drive. To use your logic, there's nothing in the spec that prevents them from doing this. It's just not promoted as a huge advantage of the technology.

I'll let you search for sales numbers for firewire. Here's an easy way to get informal numbers for yourself. Walk into all of your local computer stores. Count the number of devices with 1394 ports/cables (besides PC's and cards). Then do the same for USB 2.0. I'd bet that in every store, you come out at least 2 to 1 in favor of USB 2.0.

As for your Intel bashing, they aren't the only ones that make chipsets you know. Motherboards from other vendors have been shipping with 1394 ports for a couple of years. Still only a trickle of devices. CE companies have been painfully slow to adopt the technology.

Stop kidding yourself here. I've proven that 1394 requires a host computer to be useful in almost all situations.

 

[thorin]

Normally I'd decide to wage war with both of you guys but I just don't have the energy today. I would however like to address this one point:

I was simply pointing out that this alleged "advantage" of firewire over USB 2.0 is BS. We seem to agree on this point.

I think you're taking the point everyone tries to make incorrectly. The point is USB puts a load on your CPU (just like a WinModem does), this load becomes more and more for every USB device you use. FireWire does NOT load your cpu as it has it's own controller. Now of course you can argue that with today's CPUs this is a non-issue but that's a completely different debate. Given the choice ALOT of enthusiasts and power users will choose not to load their CPU with any extra crap (why do you think WinDSLModems never took off?).

Thorin

 

[RightHere]

Put a number on it. How do you calculate this? How many devices do you have to get to for this to actually matter?

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: RightHere
Put a number on it. How do you calculate this? How many devices do you have to get to for this to actually matter?

1 - One - Uno - Un - Ein. Why introduce any extra load when there are other technologies that don't require such a load.

Thorin

PS > Read it again........ "Now of course you can argue that with today's CPUs this is a non-issue but that's a completely different debate. Given the choice ALOT of enthusiasts and power users will choose not to load their CPU with any extra crap."

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: RightHereSomeone else on the thread says that firewire "murders" USB 2.0 when it comes to performance. That person clearly hasn't used both types of devices on a regular basis.

I posted that one, and I use both interfaces everyday..... in fact, I challenge you to SHOW me data of a HARD DRIVE that gets HIGHER performance on USB 2.0 over firewire...... There are none so far.

The supposedely "best" IDE-serial bridge for USB 2.0 (In system design) is nowhere as good as the Oxford 911. Do you have DATA to REFUTE my claim???

 

[McCarthy]

So BlazingSaddles, did you pick an enclosure yet?

 

[addragyn]

So BlazingSaddles, did you pick an enclosure yet?

Yeah we kinda hijacked this thread. Yoink!

---------

I think you need a better definition of "technologically superior". You use it throughout the rant. It's the same lame argument as the "my dad can kick your dad's butt" example I pointed to in the Apple doc.

I think you make claims which you have a very shallow depth of knowledge about.

-Your logic does not make sense. i.e. "There is an adequate amount of proof that most 1394 devices are useless when plugged into other 1394 devices. (unless there's a computer in the mix)."
The point was 1394 does not a need a host device. The above is in now way proof that FireWire can function w/o a host.

-Some of your technical points are outright wrong. i.e. "You're right that USB 2.0 can't chain 8 devices. It can go a hell of a lot further than that!!"
USB CAN"T CHAIN. It's a branched tree and a tree has a root. FireWire is a true peer to peer bus.

-Things you don't understand are dismissed in a flurry of bizarre rhetoric. i.e. "my dad can kick your dad's butt."
What?! Just say you don't understand the damn paper.

Here are a few choice bits.

I don't know what message you are reading. I'm providing examples where firewire doesn't live up to the hype that you (and many other people) are promoting.

FireWire is living the "hype". FireWire is the defacto interface for DV. FireWire is the chosen interface for HAVi and for mLAN and for DVDaudio. FireWire is replacing/supplementing SCSI on professional level scanners, and printers. FireWire is common on pro level digital cameras. FireWire is prevelant in induistrial use. FireWire is being used to connect computing clusters. FireWire is charging my iPod.


I named Apple in that statement because they have the "technical brief" listed on their website, so clearly they are the ones trying to push the lies.

Good there is somebody around who Apple hasn't bamboozled! Maybe you should alert the FCC and BBB to this deception. Don't forget all the engineers who fell ofr the "lies" also. Is your tin foil hat real shiny?


Again, how can you say that the technology is better if few devices bother to support the feature??

Because the two aren't mutually inclusive.


For the drives, you are flat out wrong. I have seen bus powered USB hard drives. And I don't mean with the PS/2 dongle for power either...I mean purely USB powered.

The Hitachi dk23da-10F (PDF) is a small(10GB) currently shipping 2.5" drive. With a small buffer, single platter, single head, and low rotational speed it has *very low* power requirements. This drive needs .9A to spin-up. Lets put some decent capacity and performance into that enclosure. We'll use the Travelstar 80 GN series. (PDF) These drives go up to 80GB, have a 2MB and 8MB buffers, and spins at 4,200rpm. This is the latest technology. To start a Travelstar 80 GN you need 4.7W.

USB supplies .5W.

USB *might* be able to power a small drive. But it won't do it with any sort of reliably. (I'm speaking from real world experience.)


Put a number on it. How do you calculate this? How many devices do you have to get to for this to actually matter?

If you can't prove your own point you probably shouldn't be making it. It would not hurt to do some reading on the topic at hand if you want to point out the lies in the hype. Otherwise it's a case of the blind leading the blind.
USB in a Nutshell (beyondlogic.com)
FireWire Overview (very simple, .doc)
You can lead a horse to water...

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: RightHereSomeone else on the thread says that firewire "murders" USB 2.0 when it comes to performance. That person clearly hasn't used both types of devices on a regular basis.

I posted that one, and I use both interfaces everyday..... in fact, I challenge you to SHOW me data of a HARD DRIVE that gets HIGHER performance on USB 2.0 over firewire...... There are none so far.

The supposedely "best" IDE-serial bridge for USB 2.0 (In system design) is nowhere as good as the Oxford 911. Do you have DATA to REFUTE my claim???

TechTV did a simple test on just this. The results are decisive.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/supergeek/jump/0,24331,3393574,00.html

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
I posted that one, and I use both interfaces everyday..... in fact, I challenge you to SHOW me data of a HARD DRIVE that gets HIGHER performance on USB 2.0 over firewire...... There are none so far.

The supposedely "best" IDE-serial bridge for USB 2.0 (In system design) is nowhere as good as the Oxford 911. Do you have DATA to REFUTE my claim???

The only data point I have is based on visual observation of the test data. I didn't save a screenshot or anything. I don't even remember the specific tool used to perform the benchmarks (I wasn't running the PC). But I think I remember the device that was used: Iomega Portable Disk Drive. You can get a USB 2.0 or Firewire interface for it. As I remember it, the USB 2.0 interface was actually a hair faster (I think it was maybe a 1% difference). To be clear on my point, I said that 1394 did not murder USB 2.0 when it came to performance. They can be pretty close.

The ISD bridge is a first gen bridge. Surely there are faster ones out there by now.

 

[RightHere]

"I think you make claims which you have a very shallow depth of knowledge about."
"Is your tin foil hat real shiny?"

Nice attempts at flame bait, but I'm not biting.

My logic re: needing a PC makes perfect sense. Sorry you cannot realize this. You admitted that your HD won't do anything when plugged into your scanner. Let me summarize, since you don't seem to be getting it:

A) The 1394 spec says that devices can operate in a peer to peer environment. No argument on this point.

B) Very few 1394 devices operate in a peer to peer environment. They only work as "slave" devices to a PC host.

Chain...branch...WTF is the difference? You're just arguing semantics now? I guess now that I've blown apart most of your technical points that's all you can do. Not all 1394 devices have more than one port, so they certainly can't chain. See any DV camera. See that B&K receiver you pointed at (and frankly that's just a damn shame, since there's certainly room on that card for another port...what were they thinking??).

Firewire is not living up to the hype surrounding it. How many years ago were we told that everything in the CE space was going to just be linked together with one cable? Are we there yet? Not even close! Sure, there have been a lot of interesting products demoed at CES/Comdex, but nothing has hit the market. In fact, more than a few companies that went the all firewire route have already faded out of existence while waiting for the explosion to take place (the best example I remember was some company that did speakers; cool technology, several great demos, and then they were gone). I used to waste a lot of time clicking on the links to consumer or computer devices on the 1394ta page. Most pointed to nothing, and it wasn't just a case of a busted link. They were products that were announced but never saw the light of day.

Right now, a few high-end pieces of A/V gear (TV, DVD, receiver) have 1394 connections on them. No speakers are being sold yet. Every year you can read the same basic line on the 1394ta website: <x> is the year that 1394 becomes big in the consumer electronics space. How do I know? I've been reading the same thing for a long time. I bought a Sony PC several years ago (1999 I think) based on info I read at their site (something like "this is the year"). At the time, Sony was the only desktop PC shipping with 1394. I intended for the PC to be my home network hub, with firewire connecting everything together. It never happened. It COULD happen today, if I had $2500+ for the TV, $3500 for the receiver, ??? for the DVD player or $1000 for a DVHS deck ($1000 for a tape-based VCR? Not freaking likely!). Tivo Series 2 boxes ship with USB 2.0, not 1394. That's the least expensive piece of home entertainment gear that ships with either technology.

"-Things you don't understand are dismissed in a flurry of bizarre rhetoric. i.e. "my dad can kick your dad's butt."
What?! Just say you don't understand the damn paper."

I understand the paper just fine thanks. This comment was in response to the "More Advanced than USB 2.0" section of the tech brief you pointed me to. There was no proof for the assertion that it was "more advanced". Let's dig deeper into this section:
- Apple claims that Firewire is better because it has a higher bandwidth, longer distances, and a much higher
powered bus
- They win on speed (with S800). For distance, there are faster options already available. For power, there are plenty of devices on both busses that can draw power from their host.
- Apple claims that the short length of the USB 2.0 cable (5m) is a limitation
- Standard 1394 cables can't be any longer than 4.5m. Last time I checked, that number was smaller than 5m. Does this really matter to most end users though? No.
- Peer to peer vs master/slave
- As I've already proven, you need a PC in the chain. The devices don't communicate directly with each other in this topology.

Glad we agree that mLAN would run just fine over USB 2.0. As for HAVi, there is only one reason why 1394 is the chosen interface. At the time the CE companies were having this argument, 1394 was the fastest bus around. That's no longer true (these devices mostly operate at S100;NONE of them operate at S800). Because they move at a snail's pace, it seems unlikely that they will switch now. It has nothing to do with which is the better interface. 1394 just got there first. There's no reason why 1394 and USB 2.0 can't co-exist: 1394 in the consumer space, and USB 2.0 on the PC.

If you want to spend $300+ on a scanner or a printer, you can get it with a 1394 interface. But there are already more USB 2.0 printing/scanning options available, and they cost less. My understanding here is that the data transfer rates are blocked by the speed on the mechanism now. Both busses can push the data fast enough, so it's a silly argument.

Please provide an example of firewire being used to connect clusters of servers. Sounds very cool!

I don't understand your last point. You can ask for facts/numbers/benchmarks. But when I ask someone to prove that there's some kind of a perf hit when plugging in a bunch of USB devices, it's a case of "the blind leading the blind"?

 

[Darien]

Originally posted by: BlazingSaddles
I am getting a new laptop (600m) and it doesn't have a firewire port. Currently, I have an external hard drive that is only fire wire compatible. my choices are:
1) buy a new enclosure, usb2.0 compliant (~$40)
2) buy a firewire pc card (~$28)

which one should i do? there is only one pccard slot in the 600m, so i'm worried what would happen if i needed to use another card. also, the firewire card is the least expensive i could find, are there any differences between card qualities?

thanks.

I've used both. In my experience the enclosures that use firewire are better with transfer speed. Just get one with both firewire and usb 2.0 (as there are lots out there, and since USB 2.0 has lots of ground thanks to the Intel backing) and you'll be happy. Just pick up a card for cheap as you mentioned and use that for general purpose. (I don't think I ever met (in real life) someone who said a HD in a usb 2.0 enclosure transfers data faster than firewire.) USB 2.0 for compatability just in case -- many a people simply ignore the firewire standard for some reason. Too bad too, because it's great

Have a nice day,

Darien

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: RightHere

I don't understand your last point. You can ask for facts/numbers/benchmarks. But when I ask someone to prove that there's some kind of a perf hit when plugging in a bunch of USB devices, it's a case of "the blind leading the blind"?

I'm assuming this was in reply to my comment(s) about CPU usage. I'm not sure what you weren't clear on (it was pretty straight forward ... any un-needed load is unfavourable) but here are some links for you:

Since you seem to really like the idea of USB/PW Speakers here's an Example For You

Here is some great info on Extigy CPU usage (USB Sound device from Creative)

No numbers on this one but it's a good read too.

Anyway as I said earlier you can't deny that USB loads your CPU where FireWire does not, so my earlier statement stands, any needless load is bad.

Thorin

 

[addragyn]

Chain...branch...WTF is the difference? You're just arguing semantics now?

IT IS NOT SEMANTICS. USB uses a star topology. FireWire can branch or star. IT IS A FACT, IT IS NOT DEBATEABLE. This is fundamental. The inability to understand this basic concept casts a shadow of doubt about every point you made. This is elementary.


Glad we agree that mLAN would run just fine over USB 2.0.

No we don't agree. mLAN is a branched topology. USB cannot branch. mLAN uses point to point transfers. USB cannot do point to point. http://www.yamaha.co.jp/tech/1394mLAN/Technical/mlan.html

As for your quip about Ethernet. To do QOS over Ethernet requires expensive, proprietary hardware. To use Ethernet requires an IP stack. FireWire has QOS builtin. And although FireWire can do IP connections mLAN is not using IP. Ethernet is not the better solution. It would be more expensive and complicated to implement and would incur higher overhead in use.


If you want to spend $300+ on a scanner or a printer, you can get it with a 1394 interface. But there are already more USB 2.0 printing/scanning options available, and they cost less. My understanding here is that the data transfer rates are blocked by the speed on the mechanism now.

You understand wrong. FireWire, as SCSI before it, is used on highend scanners and printer for two key reason. It's frickin' fast and it doesn't load the CPU. In a professional environment higher performance and higher quality is *a lot* more important than spending less than $300 on a device. I've setup scanners that cost thousands. I shudder at the thought of running a pro level slide scanner on USB or USB2.


Please provide an example of firewire being used to connect clusters of servers.

www.google.com > "firewire cluster" > enter > read. I don't think you've actually read what I've linked up for you. Find your own. You'll probably also find some stuff on shared FireWire storage. I think Oracle has some stuff on their site. Another thing USB can't do.


I don't understand your last point.

That is really the heart of it. You keep mentioning winning and defeating. I come here to learn. I've dropped a few links for you(which you haven't read it seems). Here's the last one.

Phil Storrs PC Hardware book - NEW SERIAL BUS STANDARDS


How it began

RightHere, you started out with 3 points.
1.While touted as one of the great features of the technology, the reality is that not only do you need a PC in the mix
- You were wrong, you've been shown multiple instances of FireWire being used without a PC. You may not understand these uses but that doesn't make them any less real.

2. What do you mean by "Firewire can do stuff USB can't in places USB can't go"?
- I have demostrated applications where FireWire is being used where USB could not. This a simple fact of USB limitations and FireWire's abilities.

3. Someone else on the thread says that firewire "murders" USB 2.0 when it comes to performance. That person clearly hasn't used both types of devices on a regular basis.
- While murder is definitely not objective, the meaing is clear. FireWire is faster than USB2. Collective real world experience in this thread agress with that. So do *all* the reviews linked.

Maybe the bold helps...

 

[RightHere]

Ok, now you're just acting like a tool. You're losing the argument, so you just try to insult me. I love it!

"IT IS NOT SEMANTICS. USB uses a star topology. FireWire can branch or star. IT IS A FACT, IT IS NOT DEBATEABLE. This is fundamental. The inability to understand this basic concept casts a shadow of doubt about every point you made. This is elementary."

I see that you have conveniently ignored the other half of my statement. You cannot chain with a DV camera (at least none of the ones I've seen). You cannot chain with the B&K receiver. That is a fact. Why do you feel that this is so important to the technological superiority argument?

I don't have time to read 30+ pages of a spec just to figure out what this thing does. So I went here instead. The gist of the article:
1) The goal was to transfer large amounts of data into a PC
2) Firewire was chosen because at the time (late 99 I think), it was "the only existing protocol that was in the right ballpark bandwidth-wise", and it wasn't proprietary.

Both of those statements are true for USB 2.0 as well.
- This article pointed out the dead 1394 audio company I was thinking of: Digital Harmony.

USB 2.0/firewire photo scanner (too early for detailed perf specs, since it was just announced). Link

Let me clarify my statement on scanners/printers: For $300 or less, you have more options on USB 2.0 than you do for firewire, and they offer the same level of performance.

I was highly disappointed by the firewire cluster links that I found. Most of them aren't using 1394 for the interconnect, just for external storage. Here's what I was expecting.

If you don't think I'm reading the links you're posting, you just aren't reading my messages. I did a page of rebuttal on the tech brief. I told you that IFE doesn't seem to be in use anywhere. I looked at the B&K pic to show you it didn't supply power and couldn't be used to chain.

"That is really the heart of it. You keep mentioning winning and defeating. I come here to learn."

You haven't learned anything. I'm beating you over the head with the same incredibly obvious points, but nothing sinks in. You appear to back Apple's assertion that 1394 is technically superior to USB 2.0. I'm trying to compare the two to show that's not really the case. It is only natural to use terms like win and lose in that sort of a comparison. BTW, I used the term "win" exactly 4 times in about 8 pages of posts. I'm sorry if you think I'm harping on that point.

The latest USB article you pointed to is ancient, and provides no info on USB 2.0. But I'm already well versed in the technology, so it's not needed.

Quote: "1.While touted as one of the great features of the technology, the reality is that not only do you need a PC in the mix.
- You were wrong, you've been shown multiple instances of FireWire being used without a PC. You may not
understand these uses but that doesn't make them any less real."
- I could use the same argument for you. I provided a list of scenarios that you don't understand.

Quote: "2. What do you mean by "Firewire can do stuff USB can't in places USB can't go"?
- I have demostrated applications where FireWire is being used where USB could not. This a simple fact of USB limitations and FireWire's abilities."

No, you have provided a link to one application where 1394 COULD be used, if IFE was actually in existence. There's no reason why USB 2.0 couldn't be used as the connection interface on the other devices listed.

Quote: "3. Someone else on the thread says that firewire "murders" USB 2.0 when it comes to performance. That person clearly hasn't used both types of devices on a regular basis.
- While murder is definitely not objective, the meaing is clear. FireWire is faster than USB2. Collective real world experience in this thread agress with that. So do *all* the reviews linked. "

No. "Murders" in this context implies that there is a large performance difference. That's not the case. The performance is on par. I went to extremetech and searched for more USB vs 1394 articles. Words like "slightly faster" and "similar CPU utilization" were common in those articles. example

And here are some results that show USB 2.0 being faster.

Maybe now you've learned something.

 

[thorin]

No. "Murders" in this context implies that there is a large performance difference. That's not the case. The performance is on par. I went to extremetech and searched for more USB vs 1394 articles. Words like "slightly faster" and "similar CPU utilization" were common in those articles. example

Ya it's "similar" it only uses an extra 13.5%.

Thorin

 

[vetteguy]

I hate to break this argument up for just a question, but that combo enclosure that was pointed out...does anyone know who sells them? I really want the TT-AlumiU2F (USB/FireWire 2.5" bus-powered) but can't find it anywhere online.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: vetteguy
I hate to break this argument up for just a question, but that combo enclosure that was pointed out...does anyone know who sells them? I really want the TT-AlumiU2F (USB/FireWire 2.5" bus-powered) but can't find it anywhere online.

How about this one or if you really want a 2.5" this one (I believe the combo kits are shown at the bottom of both pages). NCIX carries other ViPower products so I'm sure they could get you either of those.

Thorin

 

[vetteguy]

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: vetteguy
I hate to break this argument up for just a question, but that combo enclosure that was pointed out...does anyone know who sells them? I really want the TT-AlumiU2F (USB/FireWire 2.5" bus-powered) but can't find it anywhere online.

How about this one or if you really want a 2.5" this one (I believe the combo kits are shown at the bottom of both pages). NCIX carries other ViPower products so I'm sure they could get you either of those.

Thorin

I'd rather have one that has a normal FireWire/USB connector, instead of their proprietary 36 pin thing. It's one more thing to lose, and if I take this to a friend's house I don't have to worry about bringing the special cable.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: vetteguy

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: vetteguy
I hate to break this argument up for just a question, but that combo enclosure that was pointed out...does anyone know who sells them? I really want the TT-AlumiU2F (USB/FireWire 2.5" bus-powered) but can't find it anywhere online.

How about this one or if you really want a 2.5" this one (I believe the combo kits are shown at the bottom of both pages). NCIX carries other ViPower products so I'm sure they could get you either of those.

Thorin

I'd rather have one that has a normal FireWire/USB connector, instead of their proprietary 36 pin thing. It's one more thing to lose, and if I take this to a friend's house I don't have to worry about bringing the special cable.

Good point.

Thorin

 

[bonkers325]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Can i interject and say, it doesn't matter, cause your HDD isn't going to transfer at those speeds anyways.

i get 25megs per sec from my wd 8mb cache 7200rpm on firewire to another wd hdd
thats about 200mbps

50% of what firewire can sustain