 |
|
|
|
 |
Ryan0751
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
|
|
|
Keep in mind it'll be about 4-5 years before you start seeing products that are affordable with this kind of interface... They are stating 2010 in the release, add a few more years to get affordable and common...
|
|
Sep-20-2007 20:08
|
|
|
 |
 |
DeZmA
Synth Addict

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: Lalaland
|
|
|
Sep-21-2007 06:53
|
|
|
 |
 |
Ryan0751
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
|
|
|
Firewire 800 ports look different than Firewire 400 ports. There's the Firewire 400 6-pin and 4-pin, and Firewire 800. 800 looks like a square, not as small as the 400 4-pin.
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
it is when looking in device manager. i have never realy tested if it is 800mb/s tho how can i do that? |
|
|
Sep-21-2007 19:10
|
|
|
 |
 |
No Left Turn
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: San Francisco
|
|
|
Don't USB and Firewire each have their pros and cons, making them better than the other under their ideal conditions? (This debate doesn't bother me at all as I prefer neither over the other.) Even though USB 2.0 has faster clock speeds, isn't Firewire supposed to transfer larger files faster, with USB 2.0 being more proficient with transferring lots of smaller files? This has always been my understanding, though, I've never put this to the test myself as the work I do wouldn't really benefit THAT much from confirming this.
I like Firewire interfaces better, anyway, since they seem to be more stable and, if applicable, have the ability to be daisy-chained (go go MOTU!!) to other like devices. But for hard drives and such, I don't really see the big deal.
|
|
Sep-21-2007 20:09
|
|
|
 |
 |
Ryan0751
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
|
|
|
From wikipedia (don't ya love it?):
USB compared with FireWire
USB was originally seen as a complement to FireWire (IEEE 1394), which was designed as a high-speed serial bus which could efficiently interconnect peripherals such as hard disks, audio interfaces, and video equipment. USB originally operated at a far lower data rate and used much simpler hardware, and was suitable for small peripherals such as keyboards and mice.
The most significant technical differences between FireWire and USB include the following:
USB networks use a tiered-star topology, while FireWire networks use a repeater-based topology.
USB uses a "speak-when-spoken-to" protocol; peripherals cannot communicate with the host unless the host specifically requests communication. A FireWire device can communicate with any other node at any time, subject to network conditions.
A USB network relies on a single host at the top of the tree to control the network. In a FireWire network, any capable node can control the network.
These and other differences reflect the differing design goals of the two buses: USB was designed for simplicity and low cost, while FireWire was designed for high performance, particularly in time-sensitive applications such as audio and video. Although similar in theoretical maximum transfer rate, in real-world use, especially for high-bandwidth use such as external hard-drives, FireWire 400 generally has a significantly higher throughput than USB 2.0 Hi-Speed.[10][11][12][13] The newer FireWire 800 standard is twice as fast as FireWire 400 and outperforms USB 2.0 Hi-Speed both theoretically and practically.[14]
| quote: | Originally posted by No Left Turn
Don't USB and Firewire each have their pros and cons, making them better than the other under their ideal conditions? (This debate doesn't bother me at all as I prefer neither over the other.) Even though USB 2.0 has faster clock speeds, isn't Firewire supposed to transfer larger files faster, with USB 2.0 being more proficient with transferring lots of smaller files? This has always been my understanding, though, I've never put this to the test myself as the work I do wouldn't really benefit THAT much from confirming this.
I like Firewire interfaces better, anyway, since they seem to be more stable and, if applicable, have the ability to be daisy-chained (go go MOTU!!) to other like devices. But for hard drives and such, I don't really see the big deal. |
|
|
Sep-21-2007 20:15
|
|
|
 |
 |
Ryan0751
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
|
|
|
Re: Re: Intel flags development of next generation USBs
Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to use USB, ever... they were the first to ship USB keyboards and mice, etc. In the PC world, it took a long time before USB was stable in windows 95/98/ME/etc.
But that was when Firewire was the only other high speed alternative (USB 2.0 wasn't out).
Apple has since gone with only USB on things like the iPod because everybody has it, and it's cheaper to leave out the firewire interface.
| quote: | Originally posted by daeus
I thought USB was already an alternative? I just read in PC Specialist magazine about how firewire will be gone in a year or so's time, it didnt help when apple went usb with all of their products. |
|
|
Sep-22-2007 13:40
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|