Intel Macs - More USB, Still with Firewire?

[semaja2]

i dont see why they would drop firewire it is far better the usb, reasons why

although fw800 isnt used so much as fw400 it still supports speeds near double of usb2

it is the chosen connection by practilcy every video camera company

firewire disk mode...etc

firewire is also a network device making it very easy to network 2 firewire device without extra hardware

usb runs as stupid hubs which means everydevice gets a shared bandwidth where as firewire is dedicated to each port


anywho knowing that port was missing on my ibook would make me a sad sad boy

 

[shamino]

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!

Are you deliberately trying to offend as many people as possible in one sentence?

So you think only a "USB loving newbie" would ever want to buy an iBook? I suppose you have decided to ignore everything I say from now on until I cough up another $2000 to replace mine with a PowerBook?

If you were trying to make a point, you've failed miserably. You've instead come across like a rabid flame-baiter that is seeking admission to my kill-file.

 

[Sunrunner]

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

Yeah, because people want to fork over hundreds of dollars for discs and memory sticks... There is a reason that camcorder type never caught on. Even better, imagine the memory stick requirement if your working in HD... yeah, that would be fun . Some people are so closed minded it hurts.

 

[jbh001]

p1394c, S800 over CAT5

What about FW 1600 that supports both 400 and 800 too

Hopefully what this really means is that p1394c is about to see the light of day--maybe by June 2006. That means that Apple might get rid of all firewire ports since the ethernet port can then do double duty as the firewire port. Just imagine a RJ45 jack on one end of the cable, and a legacy FW400 or FW800 jack on the other end. One less port; same or more functionallity.

More info: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/
More info: http://www.teener.com/FireWire/index.html

 

[shamino]

Just imagine a RJ45 jack on one end of the cable, and a legacy FW400 or FW800 jack on the other end. One less port; same or more functionallity.

Means an expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen.

Just like the dongles you used to need for PCMCIA network interfaces. Those were trivial devices - just a cable and connector - and they were difficult and expensive to replace.

An actual FireWire-based Ethernet interface would cost much more (since it would be an actual NIC, not just a cable) but it would be just as vulnerable to loss and damage.

No thanks.

Cramming more ports on the side of a computer is a problem, but if it comes at the cost of making it more annoying to travel with the computer, I'd rather they not bother.

 

[fluidinclusion]

IT has saved me lots of time!

What about "Firewire Target Disk Mode?" That is like the coolest thing... unless they make it work with USB, unless it already does.

I've used Target disk mode many times to transfer files. I even used it once on a friends Mac to rescue his files before his drive died. (I could copy them with Target disk mode, but his machine wouldn't boot.)

 

[jbh001]

[deleted]

 

[jbh001]

Means an expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen.

Just like the dongles you used to need for PCMCIA network interfaces. Those were trivial devices - just a cable and connector - and they were difficult and expensive to replace.

Did you even bother to follow any of the links and actually read up on the proposal?

From http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/1394cIntroKevinBrown.pdf

For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket labeled "network", and works for any kind of connection.

If any there is any "expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen," it would be the laptop or computer itself. And that is different from the current scenario how?

Who said anything about dongles? There are no dongles involved, just a firewire cable with an RJ-45 connector on one or both ends. How would this cable be more "difficult and expensive to replace" than existing FW cables or standard CAT5 ethernet cables?

Perphaps your "expensive device that can easily get broken, lost or stolen" is this:

Allow a simple hub-like-thing to be built that:
– Connects all endpoints that negotiate to Ethernet using standard hub or switch technology
– Connects all endpoints that negotiate to 1394 using standard PHY or 1394.1 technology
– Bridges IP data between the two network domains

Again, how would this hub be more "difficult and expensive to replace" or more "easily get broken, lost or stolen" than existing hubs? How is this different from the current situation?

[Edna Mode voice] What are you talking about! [/Edna Mode Voice]

 

[fluidinclusion]

Mine did

No, you need a 4 to 6 pin Firewire cable.

Why camcorders don't ship with these is beyond me.

Mine did. Cheap Canon.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Who uses Firewire? Certainly not those USB loving iBook newbies. Only real pros use and require Firewire. With the advent of disc and memory stick camcorders, no one really needs Firewire. It's already an antiquated technology from 1996!

Just because some new camcorders now come with DVDs, hard drives and USB connections doesn't mean that the average consumer like me (and therefore those likely to buy a new iBook) can afford to go and get a new camcorder and everything to make it work. They would more likely choose NOT to get a Mac for this reason. Equally, as I and others have said already, iMovie and iChat* currently ONLY support FireWire. Sure, the new versions in January may change that but there should always be a transition period. Just like the fact that Mac OS X still supports G3s even though Apple doesn't sell computers with this chip any more.

A dormant Firewire port on an iBook does not take up much space or cost much but it sure as hell is necessary for some people. No amount of USB ports will allow my FireWire LaCie external drive hook up to it. Not to mention that USB throughput sucks and I'm fortunate to be able to choose Firewire over USB2 for my iPod syncing (I still have an old one).

Plus, dropping Firewire from some Mac models adds to customer confusion and creates the scenario where some iPods will not work with new Macs. Apple and Macs and all about one package that fits together sublimely. End of story.

* Unofficial third party hack required for USB camera support with iChat.

 

[shamino]

Did you even bother to follow any of the links and actually read up on the proposal?

From http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1394/c/1394cIntroKevinBrown.pdf

Had you linked to this page in your post, I would've posted a different reply.

The page you provided was an incredibly brief (and not useful) abstract, and links to a lot of password-protected standards documents.

That being said, it is very unclear whether a simple cable will allow an unmodified FW device to attach to this port without the proposed "hub-like-thing" device in between.

Note that the goal is to "Not interfere with any legacy 802.3 device". Says nothing about interfering with legacy FW devices.

Finally, even if it works the way you say it will, using such a port on a laptop computer assumes that the user will never need to use both Ethernet and FW at once (such as someone using a LAN and a hard drive at once). Otherwise, you will need an external breakout box - which is something that can easily be lost, broken or stolen. And until/unless this standard becomes extremely popular, it won't be a cheap device. (GigE hubs were terribly expensive for many years before the tech became popular enough to drive the price down. And even today, one costa over $100.)

 

[Bastich]

This topic has been done over several times before. Short answer, Apple CANNOT drop Firewire from hardware anytime soon; too much Pro hardware relies on it, and Apple is NOT about to alienate them.

That's it in a nutshell... but what if it's not a pro system? Apple could easily release a stripped-down iBook to entice the switchers, just like the Mac Mini did. They certainly don't need Firewire, nor do starving students who also might consider such a system. It would be a shame to lose the DV camcorder features of iMovie, but imagine how much they could slash the price if they cut it and Bluetooth. It would be stupider to cut Airport, in my opinion.

 

[Randall]

What a supprise.

There was never any doubt in my mind that FireWire would stick around. Even though it's Apple-based technology, it's not like FW400 (IEEE 1394) doesn't exist in the PC world. FW400 comes on just about evey new PC motherboard I've seen these days, and I think the stronghold for FireWire is getting larger if anything.

 

[Sunrunner]

That's it in a nutshell... but what if it's not a pro system? Apple could easily release a stripped-down iBook to entice the switchers, just like the Mac Mini did. They certainly don't need Firewire, nor do starving students who also might consider such a system. It would be a shame to lose the DV camcorder features of iMovie, but imagine how much they could slash the price if they cut it and Bluetooth. It would be stupider to cut Airport, in my opinion.

If Firewire is going to be removed out of anything, it will be the iBooks to be sure. But even that is a stretch, as it is hard to justify iMovie without a Firewire connector for your camera...

 

[guillermo]

Firewire port is very important

People are crazy!

Firewire port is the main connection for professional audio and video equipment. This port is used with 90% of serious audio interfaces that I know. Top PC laptops include firewire port today for these reason.

Apple will not remove this port, it's obvious.

 

[ilnyckyj]

I do music recording, and i have a Digidesign 002 which runs via firewire. I'll be really reallly pissed if i can't use it with my mac.

 

[jbh001]

Had you linked to this page in your post, I would've posted a different reply.

The page you provided was an incredibly brief (and not useful) abstract, and links to a lot of password-protected standards documents.

Thats and odd statement to make considering that the first link in the page to an external document is this:

"Kevin Brown of Broadcom has prepared a short summary of p1394c technology."

And it is only the second document link from the beginning of the page.

Sorry that I can't do your reading and web surfing for you. That and telepathy are skills I am still trying to master.

That being said, it is very unclear whether a simple cable will allow an unmodified FW device to attach to this port without the proposed "hub-like-thing" device in between.

Note that the goal is to "Not interfere with any legacy 802.3 device". Says nothing about interfering with legacy FW devices.

Sorry that I can't analyze and process your reading for you either. What part of...
"For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket that is labeled “network”, and works for any kind of connection."
...means leagacy devices, be they ethernet or 1394, won't work?

And what part of ...
"Allow appropriate negotiation to be done so that
the endpoints can select which protocols to be
used:
– 10BASE-T Ethernet
– 100BASE-TX Ethernet
– S100 1394b
– 1000BASE-T Ethernet
– S800 1394c"
...means that 1394c won't be backward compatible with 1394b, which is already backward compatible with 1394a?

What part of this prohibits having a CAT5 cable with a RJ-45 connector on one end and a 4-pin FW connector, 6-pin FW connector, 9-pin FW connector, or RJ-45 connector on the other? Especially when the "network" port on the computer will auto-negotiate between ethernet, FW400, and FW800 depending on what kind of signal it is getting?

Finally, even if it works the way you say it will, using such a port on a laptop computer assumes that the user will never need to use both Ethernet and FW at once (such as someone using a LAN and a hard drive at once). Otherwise, you will need an external breakout box -

True. Or the FW port stays put & the ethernet port gets increased functionality (IP over 1394). Win/Win.

- which is something that can easily be lost, broken or stolen. And until/unless this standard becomes extremely popular, it won't be a cheap device. (GigE hubs were terribly expensive for many years before the tech became popular enough to drive the price down. And even today, one costa over $100.)

<sigh> Now were just back to FUD.

 

[shamino]

Sorry that I can't analyze and process your reading for you either. What part of...
"For the end user, the objective is to have a single RJ-45 socket that is labeled “network”, and works for any kind of connection."
...means leagacy devices, be they ethernet or 1394, won't work?

The spec defines an elaborate negotiation protocol for determining FW vs. Ethernet. If the remote device doesn't participate in the negotiation, how is it going to know what you're using? The slides you're so fond of pointing out seem to indicate that they resolve this by assuming Ethernet in the absence of anything else.

Or are you claiming that existing FW devices already support this protocol that hasn't even been finalized yet?

And what part of ...
"Allow appropriate negotiation to be done so that
the endpoints can select which protocols to be
used:
– 10BASE-T Ethernet
– 100BASE-TX Ethernet
– S100 1394b
– 1000BASE-T Ethernet
– S800 1394c"
...means that 1394c won't be backward compatible with 1394b, which is already backward compatible with 1394a?

Read that line more closely.

It's talking about a negotiation protocol, with which the endpoints may select one of those protocols. Legacy devices will not participate in the negotiation, making the range of possibly-selected protocols irrelevant.

What part of this prohibits having a CAT5 cable with a RJ-45 connector on one end and a 4-pin FW connector, 6-pin FW connector, 9-pin FW connector, or RJ-45 connector on the other? Especially when the "network" port on the computer will auto-negotiate between ethernet, FW400, and FW800 depending on what kind of signal it is getting?

It is not at all clear from the slides you're presenting that it will be possible to select FW protocol if the device doesn't participate in the negotiation.

Maybe the draft spec defines a way to make all this work - allowing a host to select the right protocol in the presence of legacy devices of all kinds, but the slides you're referencing do not say anything about this. They only talk about what can be done after protocols have been negotiated, and the diagrams consistently refer to specialized interface chips on both ends of the cable.

 

[jbh001]

Maybe the draft spec defines a way to make all this work - allowing a host to select the right protocol in the presence of legacy devices of all kinds, ...

There! That's it! What you said! That's what I've been trying to say all this time!

This is the way all the information about p1394c reads to me. I guess I'm just coming at this from a different perspective from yours. (My point of view is always profoundly obvious to me. Why does the rest of the world have such a hard time seeing it my way? )

 

[mattsgotredhair]

boo-hoo-hoo, i'm not sympathetic.

The way i see it is one less ungainly hole to see on a cute iBook or PB. While they are at it, get rid of the modem port and ethernet port too. Give me a beautiful stylist laptop with long battery life and wireless access.
Let not cater to people who like to stick every which wires that they can find to their laptop.

Cinch

Why do you even include PB's in your statement? Obviously if you are only concerned with a computer having long battery life and wireless access then you're probably not going to need the POWER of a POWERbook. So take your iBooks, I'd like to continue using my PowerBook to do things it was more intended to do.

 

[iPC]

Im sure all mac's will retain firewire in spite of intel, i mean what is the point of dropping firewire its of no benefit to either apple or the consumer, they should at least keep 1 firewire slot on every new intel mac,

Shadow

bacause usb is an intel technology and firewire is not.