Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2007-09-19 8:30 am
- Tetrachloride
- ❖ ❖ ❖
- Registered: 2001-01-29
- Posts: 7150
USB 3.0
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2007-09-19/#7212
Intel announced the formation of the USB 3.0 promoters group to define the future implementation of the USB format. While preserving cables and connectors, USB 3.0 is expected to deliver data transfer speed 10 times faster than the current 480 Mbits/s for USB 2.0. The future USB 3.0 should include a power management in order to save energy, and an optical version of the connector could also be developed.
The first draft of USB 3.0 should be released for H2 2008, and if Apple does not push the FireWire to evolve, the USB 3.0 might be the final winner.
and no signal from Apple that Firewire is going to advance.
Offline
#2 2007-09-19 9:25 am
Re: USB 3.0
FireWire lost the battle forever when Apple stopped using it in their iPods.
Offline
#3 2007-09-19 9:26 am
Re: USB 3.0
Unfortunately for FireWire it's at a stage where it's got the specifications to advance but not the financial backing. The IEEE 1394 spec has always been designed to be scaled (to at least 3200 Mbps) but commercially it's never been viable to do so (due to cost and implementation limitations). Even Apple wasn't the first one to make IEEE 1394b (even though IEE 1394a was their baby). They were just the only commercial manufacturer to standardize it on their computer systems. USB 3.0 is a great step and I hope it finally pushes FireWire forward but even if it end up simply replacing FireWire on desktop systems there will FireWire systems until NASA and the military find a better, cheaper peer based data transfer hardware standard.
Offline
#4 2007-09-19 9:40 am
- Nefarious
- Tuning Fork
- Moderator
- From: 45°22"N 84°57"W
- Registered: 2002-09-30
- Posts: 7998
Re: USB 3.0
Migration Assistant requires Firewire. Unless USB has that, Macs will always have Firewire.
Offline
#5 2007-09-19 10:11 am
Re: USB 3.0
Digital Video cameras that use Digital8 or MiniDV.
Spirit was crushed; now is fading, But I want to help make things right.
Because I can see and I can feel, and you can see and you can feel
So why don't we both either stand up and fight
Or at least together we'll call it a night.
Offline
#6 2007-09-19 10:29 am
Re: USB 3.0
USB was made for peripherals but was expanded for ubiquity's sake cause it's cheap. It's top speed is only seen when a single device using the Maximum USB standard is using and independently controlled port but at no faster than the device's own actual throughput and even then USB has the highest overhead. (With the possible exception of SSD nothing yet equals the maximum throughput of the 480 Mb/s bus even with the overhead).
FireWire was made for dedicated data transfers across multiple supposedly independent devices. It's highest speed is only realized when the fastest connected device can negotiate the highest dedicated chunk of the speed that's higher to the device's own actual throughput. (With the possible exception of SSD nothing yet equals the maximum throughput of the 800 Mb/s bus even with the overhead).
eSATA was made for single drive connections without significant overhead loss. Currently it's highest speed is the actual throughput of the only device attached. (Nothing yet equals the maximum throughput of the 3.0 Gb/s bus).
Offline
#7 2007-09-19 12:21 pm
- Booksley
- Zombie Genocidest
- From: Toronto, Ontario
- Registered: 2001-02-16
- Posts: 5038
Re: USB 3.0
Tetrachloride wrote:
The first draft of USB 3.0 should be released for H2 2008, and if Apple does not push the FireWire to evolve, the USB 3.0 might be the final winner.
USB 2.0 is already the final winner.
Offline
#8 2007-09-19 12:39 pm
- Mr. T
- Best of both worlds
- From: omnipresent
- Registered: 2002-04-02
- Posts: 4231
Re: USB 3.0
Once again [for Apple], the problem boils down to legacy support. USB 2.0/1.x are backwards/forwards compatible with each other. FireWire 800 is backwards compatible with FireWire 400 (with a special cable) but the reverse is not true.
FireWire 400 was moderately successful mostly because it was released before USB 2 existed. But Apple dropped the ball with FW 800, and I think it's too late for them to recover now.
while (1) {fork();}
Offline
#9 2007-09-19 12:57 pm
Re: USB 3.0
USB 1.x is no more forward compatible than FireWire 400. On USB if you plug a backwards compliant 2.0 device into a 1.x port it works at 1.x speed. On FireWire if you plug a backwards compliant FW800 device into a FW400 port it works at FW400 speed. In fact most backward compliant FireWire devices make it easier to determine backwards compliance by giving you both FW800 & FW400 ports on them where USB devices are better at warning of non-compliance ("For use with High Speed USB Only" or "For use with USB 2.0 Only" or "Not for use with USB 1.x"). Beyond that I've seen people sometimes be able to flip the 9-6 pin cable and operate at FW 400 speed on a few devices as well (less common). The real forward compatibility issues seem to consistently pop up when people try flipping 9-4 pin cables (and to a lesser degree 6-4 pin cables) or use USB 2.0 or FireWire 800 devices that are in no way, shape, or fashion backwards compliant (and yes they exist).
Offline
#10 2007-09-19 1:17 pm
- Mr. T
- Best of both worlds
- From: omnipresent
- Registered: 2002-04-02
- Posts: 4231
Re: USB 3.0
I'm not aware of an adapter that allows you to connect a FireWire 800 device to a FireWire 400 port. But even if such a thing exists, the fact that you need it, is enough to cause trouble. I assume it doesn't exist, because the FW800 spec does not mandate backwards compatibility in its devices (why else would they change the port?).
Last edited by Mr. T (2007-09-19 1:21 pm)
while (1) {fork();}
Offline
#11 2007-09-19 1:31 pm
Re: USB 3.0
the way I see it, neither has lost or won, they're just made for different things:
firewire= constant data transfer: hard drives, dv, etc
usb= peripherals and one-time data transfer: mouse/keyboard, iPod, digital cameras, etc
am i wrong here?
Offline
#12 2007-09-19 1:32 pm
Re: USB 3.0
Here I'll try to spell it out a bit more clearly, Mr. T.
If both FW 400 & FW 800 ports exist on the device, no adaptor is needed. A standard 6-6 pin FireWire cable will work but will effectively make the FW 800 device operate as a FW 400 device. It should be noted that it's quite common for devices to also have FW 400 ports if they have FW 800 ports.
If only FW 800 ports exist on the device, a standard 9 pin (FW 800) to 6 pin (FW 400) FireWire cable (Like you typically use to connect a FW 400 device to a FW 800 port) will sometimes (but not always) work but if it does work it will effectively make the FW 800 device operate as a FW 400 device.
Offline
#13 2007-09-19 1:37 pm
- Some1
- The flying moleman.
- From: Montral
- Registered: 2003-05-17
- Posts: 2703
Re: USB 3.0
Booksley wrote:
Tetrachloride wrote:
The first draft of USB 3.0 should be released for H2 2008, and if Apple does not push the FireWire to evolve, the USB 3.0 might be the final winner.
USB 2.0 is already the final winner.
Definitely, but it doesn't change the fact that when I bought an Ext. HD I bought one with firewire compatibility, because even though the theoretical speeds are different, firewire is still faster than 2.0.
But if USB 3.0 works well and quickly, then I see no reason not to use it.
Offline
#14 2007-09-19 1:38 pm
- Tallgeese
- Sternly Advising
- From: Pool Party
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 34096
Re: USB 3.0
So is USB 3.0 also going to run a million times slower in reality than in specs, like 1.0 and 2.0?
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Offline
#15 2007-09-19 1:58 pm
Re: USB 3.0
If any 1.x devices are plugged in, then absolutely. If any 2.0 devices are plugged in, then yes. If only 3.0 devices are plugged in, then more or less.
USB is always more or less the speed rating of slowest device on chain minus bus overhead divided by number devices on chain. Just thank the computer gods that the computer makers had the sense to put each system port on separate controller since the standardization of USB 2.0. You can at least keep the 2.0 devices from taking a speed hit due to sharing a controller with 1.x devices.
Offline
#16 2007-09-19 2:26 pm
- MacAddict4Life
- Member
- From: Castro Valley
- Registered: 2000-04-24
- Posts: 2797
- Website
Re: USB 3.0
FW 800 can be daisy-chained, right? I am under the impression it is identical to 400, except faster.
Can you go from computer to, say, FW800 HD, to FW400 CD burner? Just curious.
Firewire IS the better tech. But it's also more expensive and requires more space and power (for the chip-set in each device). I don't think it will go away, just fill it's niche.
http://www.ernestphillips.com/
"Of all the habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensible supports." -George Washington
Offline
#17 2007-09-19 2:34 pm
- Aqua OS X
- Shark Sandwich
- From: Oakland, CA
- Registered: 2000-06-05
- Posts: 12669
Re: USB 3.0
Does anyone know is USB 3 is powered and address the problems with USB's host / slave requirement?
An optical channel is great and all, but USB really needs to be able to perform interrupts.
Offline
#18 2007-09-19 3:11 pm
- D'Eyncourt
- OMGDICTATOR
- Registered: 2001-12-27
- Posts: 8808
- Website
Re: USB 3.0
I'm just disappointed that the USB standards group isn't going to call the new standard "USB 2.0 ReallyREALLYFast."
BOYCOTT SONY
"I think the question now is not whether you went to Vietnam or whether you didn't, whether you fought in the war or fought against the war. I think the only question is whether we can find a president smart enough never to make a mistake like that again"--Molly Ivins, way back in 1992
Offline
#19 2007-09-19 3:24 pm
Re: USB 3.0
Aqua OS X wrote:
Does anyone know is USB 3 is powered and address the problems with USB's host / slave requirement?
An optical channel is great and all, but USB really needs to be able to perform interrupts.
Um, yeah. That's whay we have FireWire.
It's IDE vs. SCSI all over again: USB is designed to be cheap. Since cheap (crap) drives the Windows PC world, that's what gets adopted.
This article is FUD. Read closely: first draft is expected in the second half of 2008. Like, wow. Any guesses on when actual devices (.0 with bugs) will actually hit the market?
,xtG
.tsooJ
Offline
#20 2007-09-19 3:57 pm
- Aqua OS X
- Shark Sandwich
- From: Oakland, CA
- Registered: 2000-06-05
- Posts: 12669
Re: USB 3.0
Alien wrote:
Aqua OS X wrote:
Does anyone know is USB 3 is powered and address the problems with USB's host / slave requirement?
An optical channel is great and all, but USB really needs to be able to perform interrupts.Um, yeah. That's whay we have FireWire.
It's IDE vs. SCSI all over again: USB is designed to be cheap. Since cheap (crap) drives the Windows PC world, that's what gets adopted.
This article is FUD. Read closely: first draft is expected in the second half of 2008. Like, wow. Any guesses on when actual devices (.0 with bugs) will actually hit the market?
,xtG
.tsooJ
Products are expect to hit the market in 2009 / 2010.
Offline
#21 2007-09-19 6:25 pm
- Pariah
- James Carville Fan..
- From: Belly Of The Beast, Oklahoma!
- Registered: 2001-05-24
- Posts: 18425
Re: USB 3.0
Alien wrote:
It's IDE vs. SCSI all over again: USB is designed to be cheap. Since cheap (crap) drives the Windows PC world, that's what gets adopted.
Cheap crap like Intel Inside?
"and it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Barack Obama
Offline
#22 2007-09-19 8:16 pm
- ActionAttackJohn
- Soon to be banned
- From: 1st State
- Registered: 2007-05-03
- Posts: 197
Re: USB 3.0
Heh. Apple JUST put USB 2.0 ports on their keyboard. 
I wonder what would happen if I plugged my iPhone dock in with the FW dock cable... 
ffffffffffffffffffffffff
Offline
#23 2007-09-19 8:22 pm
- MacAddict4Life
- Member
- From: Castro Valley
- Registered: 2000-04-24
- Posts: 2797
- Website
Re: USB 3.0
It should charge, and that's all. It's not capable of data connection via Firewire.
http://www.ernestphillips.com/
"Of all the habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensible supports." -George Washington
Offline
#24 2007-09-19 8:33 pm
- ActionAttackJohn
- Soon to be banned
- From: 1st State
- Registered: 2007-05-03
- Posts: 197
Re: USB 3.0
MacAddict4Life wrote:
It should charge, and that's all. It's not capable of data connection via Firewire.
Confirmed. 
I purposely held onto my 4th gen iPod because I didn't want to use a USB cable.
*pours one onto the sidewalk for FireWire*
ffffffffffffffffffffffff
Offline
