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.
Consider it broken.
I'm not sure what specific enclosure you're talking about. If you're a fancy boy and into looks Googie makes very unique enclosures. I prefer the simple aluminum enclusres myself and bought a few of these awhile back. They're not so unique anymore. The newer version of the Cutie, the CutieDX looks pretty snazzy IMO. The Lacie DataBank looks like a silver brick. WiebeTech sells good stuff, their enclosures are rebranded and can usually be found elsewhere for less.
************************
Ok, now you're just acting like a tool. You're losing the argument, so you just try to insult me. I love it!
There's a contradiction in your statement... isn't there? If you're insulted then you're definitely not reading my links!
"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?
You said the difference between a tree and a star was "semantics". I quote you to you, "Chain...branch...WTF is the difference? You're just arguing semantics now?" It is not a rhetorical nitpick. USB cannot branch. FireWire can.
I think it's safe to assume DV cams don't have two ports because there is no good reason for them to chain. Unlike my hard drive enclosures which do have dual 1394 ports. Where chaining is useful! Server boards frequently have dual NICS onboard. Desktop boards don't. It's simply devices being designed for their application.
Let's try a picture this time. Can USB do this? NO.
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.
mLAN is used to connect many devices in a chain. Can USB do that? NO.
Your second point is telling. Why was USB 2.0 developed when FireWire had existed for so long? It took resources to engineer USB2. We as consumers are paying for it. Why is Intel making the consumer pay for an inferior bus when a superior one already existed? Couldn't they have passed the saving on or even better used those resources on other non-redundant technology. Maybe we could've had Hyperthreading earlier? Or maybe FireWire 800 could've been developed earlier. It would also mean no fragmentation among computer peripheral interface. USB is a great low speed, low power, low cost bus. FireWire is a great high speed bus. They complement each other very well.
Both of those statements are true for USB 2.0 as well.
They may well be. Are these three?
1. USB chain.
2. USB devices can operate without a root/host.
3. USB can do peer to peer transfers.
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.
Moving the goalposts. Again. You originally said "Both busses can push the data fast enough, so it's a silly argument." It's not all about how fast the bus is. It's also about how the bus goes that fast. Need to dig a little deeper Encyclopedia Brown.
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.
Your link goes to a paid article. Read it free here. Can USB cluster like that? NO. Here's a FireWire storage article @ Oracle. Can USB do shared storage? NO. This is FireWire doing things USB can't because of FireWire's technological superiority.
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.
You still misunderstand and protest on *basic points* of contrast between USB and FireWire.
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.
FireWire is technically superior to USB and USB2. Empirical evidence i.e. FireWire's dominace in high end applications and it's use in industry demonstrate. Comparitively by spec FireWire is also superior to USB. USB2 is a great low cost bus for consumer applications where *low cost* takes precedence. In markets where performance is a higher priority over low cost FireWire is being used. What do you know that all the engineers making these design decisions don't?
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.
Who cares if it's old, the information is still correct. IMO You're not clueless but "well versed in the technology" seems optimistic.
"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.
Do it. Show me USB or USB2 being used w/o a PC. Just parroting my point back to me is hardly a rebuttal.
"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.
Yes there is. It's very basic and I've explained it 3 times now. Again; chain v. branch, star v. branch, host v. peer.
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
Why would you link to such a poorly done review? They don't even specify the file sizes being used! PCMark is a junk benchmark(I presume anybody who reads Anandtech would know that). I have as much regard for it as SiSoft Sandra. Search on the forum, I'm sure you'll find my opinion is corroborated. It's widely know the Oxford 911 is the best 1394 - IDE bridge. They didn't use it.
It's not hard to find reviews that say what you want.
Despite the speed advantage USB 2.0 offers over the old v1.1 standard, FireWire remains the performance king of plug-and-play connections. (TechTV)
Conclusion: FireWire Gives the Best Results (Tom's Hardware)
And though we tested the drive with its USB 2.0 connection, this chart shows only the MicroGB's FireWire results; the drive performed about 15 to 25 percent slower using its USB 2.0 connection. (cnet)
Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop. (PC Mag)
Maybe now you've learned something.
You're a fan of the former Iraqi Defense Minister? :Q
FireWire cannot chain. It is a Hollywood movie.
USB2 is faster. The Apple infidels lie.
The heathens speak of bus power.
There is no bus power.
It is non-believer semantics.
*This discussion has become circular. It is no longer interesting or useful. I don't see it presenting any new information to the forum.*
************************
For anybody else reading this thread PC Mag has some good simple & short pages on both USB2 and 1394. The pages are very short and definitely worth a few minutes if you're interested.
FireWire
Introduction
History
Pros and Cons
The Future
Fast Facts
USB 2.0
Introduction
History
Pros and Cons
The Future
Fast Facts
Enjoy!
Consider it broken.
I'm not sure what specific enclosure you're talking about. If you're a fancy boy and into looks Googie makes very unique enclosures. I prefer the simple aluminum enclusres myself and bought a few of these awhile back. They're not so unique anymore. The newer version of the Cutie, the CutieDX looks pretty snazzy IMO. The Lacie DataBank looks like a silver brick. WiebeTech sells good stuff, their enclosures are rebranded and can usually be found elsewhere for less.************************
Ok, now you're just acting like a tool. You're losing the argument, so you just try to insult me. I love it!
There's a contradiction in your statement... isn't there? If you're insulted then you're definitely not reading my links!
"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?
You said the difference between a tree and a star was "semantics". I quote you to you, "Chain...branch...WTF is the difference? You're just arguing semantics now?" It is not a rhetorical nitpick. USB cannot branch. FireWire can.
I think it's safe to assume DV cams don't have two ports because there is no good reason for them to chain. Unlike my hard drive enclosures which do have dual 1394 ports. Where chaining is useful! Server boards frequently have dual NICS onboard. Desktop boards don't. It's simply devices being designed for their application.
Let's try a picture this time. Can USB do this? NO.
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.
mLAN is used to connect many devices in a chain. Can USB do that? NO.
Your second point is telling. Why was USB 2.0 developed when FireWire had existed for so long? It took resources to engineer USB2. We as consumers are paying for it. Why is Intel making the consumer pay for an inferior bus when a superior one already existed? Couldn't they have passed the saving on or even better used those resources on other non-redundant technology. Maybe we could've had Hyperthreading earlier? Or maybe FireWire 800 could've been developed earlier. It would also mean no fragmentation among computer peripheral interface. USB is a great low speed, low power, low cost bus. FireWire is a great high speed bus. They complement each other very well.
Both of those statements are true for USB 2.0 as well.
They may well be. Are these three?
1. USB chain.
2. USB devices can operate without a root/host.
3. USB can do peer to peer transfers.
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.
Moving the goalposts. Again. You originally said "Both busses can push the data fast enough, so it's a silly argument." It's not all about how fast the bus is. It's also about how the bus goes that fast. Need to dig a little deeper Encyclopedia Brown.
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.
Your link goes to a paid article. Read it free here. Can USB cluster like that? NO. Here's a FireWire storage article @ Oracle. Can USB do shared storage? NO. This is FireWire doing things USB can't because of FireWire's technological superiority.
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.
You still misunderstand and protest on *basic points* of contrast between USB and FireWire.
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.
FireWire is technically superior to USB and USB2. Empirical evidence i.e. FireWire's dominace in high end applications and it's use in industry demonstrate. Comparitively by spec FireWire is also superior to USB. USB2 is a great low cost bus for consumer applications where *low cost* takes precedence. In markets where performance is a higher priority over low cost FireWire is being used. What do you know that all the engineers making these design decisions don't?
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.
Who cares if it's old, the information is still correct. IMO You're not clueless but "well versed in the technology" seems optimistic.
"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.
Do it. Show me USB or USB2 being used w/o a PC. Just parroting my point back to me is hardly a rebuttal.
"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.
Yes there is. It's very basic and I've explained it 3 times now. Again; chain v. branch, star v. branch, host v. peer.
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
Why would you link to such a poorly done review? They don't even specify the file sizes being used! PCMark is a junk benchmark(I presume anybody who reads Anandtech would know that). I have as much regard for it as SiSoft Sandra. Search on the forum, I'm sure you'll find my opinion is corroborated. It's widely know the Oxford 911 is the best 1394 - IDE bridge. They didn't use it.
It's not hard to find reviews that say what you want.
Despite the speed advantage USB 2.0 offers over the old v1.1 standard, FireWire remains the performance king of plug-and-play connections. (TechTV)
Conclusion: FireWire Gives the Best Results (Tom's Hardware)
And though we tested the drive with its USB 2.0 connection, this chart shows only the MicroGB's FireWire results; the drive performed about 15 to 25 percent slower using its USB 2.0 connection. (cnet)
Though USB 2.0 is rated at a higher throughput speed, FireWire delivered faster performance on external hard drives when connected to a desktop. (PC Mag)
Maybe now you've learned something.
You're a fan of the former Iraqi Defense Minister? :Q
FireWire cannot chain. It is a Hollywood movie.
USB2 is faster. The Apple infidels lie.
The heathens speak of bus power.
There is no bus power.
It is non-believer semantics.
*This discussion has become circular. It is no longer interesting or useful. I don't see it presenting any new information to the forum.*
************************
For anybody else reading this thread PC Mag has some good simple & short pages on both USB2 and 1394. The pages are very short and definitely worth a few minutes if you're interested.
FireWire
Introduction
History
Pros and Cons
The Future
Fast Facts
USB 2.0
Introduction
History
Pros and Cons
The Future
Fast Facts
Enjoy!
Facebook
Twitter