Comment buried. Show
1. DCJ001

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Oct 2007

   0
   11/23, 10:21pm | report spam | close reply

   FireWire 400 or 800?

   The article said, "The high speed connection option is claimed to support transfer rates of up to 625MB/s, beating USB 2.0 and even FireWire by a considerable margin."
   
   But, based on the details given, USB 3.0 should be faster than FireWire 400, but not faster than FireWire 800. There are more than one FireWire and the article should be more specific.

Comment buried. Show
1. Arty50

   Mac Elite

   Joined: May 2000

   0
   11/23, 10:21pm | report spam | close reply

   Correction

   "The high speed connection option is claimed to support transfer rates of up to 625MB/s, beating USB 2.0 and even FireWire by a considerable margin."
   
   I think you meant to say Firewire 400. 800 is still faster.

Comment buried. Show
1. mjtomlin

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Oct 1999

   +3
   11/23, 10:29pm | report spam | close reply

   Not Quite

   @DCJ001 & Arty50:
   
   FireWire 800 is actually 800Mb/s which equals 100MB/s.

Comment buried. Show
1. heyjp

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2009

   +4
   11/23, 11:20pm | report spam | close reply

   Clarification on bits and bytes

   Here are the maximum speeds for USB and Firewire: Mb is Mega-bits, MB is Mega-Bytes
   
   USB 1.1 12 Mb/s 1.5 MB/s
   USB 2.0 480 Mb/s 60.0 MB/s
   USB 3.0 5000 Mb/s 625.0 MB/s
   
   Firewire 400 400 Mb/s 50.0 MB/s
   Firewire 800 800 Mb/s 100.0 MB/s
   
   USB 3.0 is supposed to be over 10X USB 2 and 6X Firewire 800.
   
   Jim

Comment buried. Show
1. chas_m

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +1
   11/23, 11:59pm | report spam | close reply

   Bad MacNN!

   You REALLY should make this a LOT clearer -- use of the term "MB/sec" is *not* the same thing as "Mb/sec," and not every computer user knows the difference (indeed, most -- even a lot of power users -- do not).
   
   Mb = megaBIT.
   MB = megaBYTES, or 8x a mega BIT
   
   Also, it should be noted that Buffalo is, frankly, talking out of their butts on their claim. USB3's maximum *THEORETICAL* speed is 5000mb (625MB) per second. No user will ever actually achieve anywhere near that speed, as USB3 requires a lot of overhead (which is why Firewire is STILL superior, even when slower!).
   
   Tests done so far show that normal use peaks at about 400MB/sec -- still wicked fast, mind you, but nowhere near 625MB/sec. And typical real-world use will be slower still. Yes, STILL faster than FW800 on a good day, but not the revolution they promise.
   
   If Apple will ever get FW3200 out the door, or Intel brings out Light Peak, or the next-gen eSATA shows up, look out USB3 you're likely to be outclassed by a huge margin.
   
   In short, speed freaks have a fun couple of years coming up arguing about what's really the fastest. For conventional hard drives, my money is on next-gen eSATA actually (I'm not sure Apple is going to commit to next-gen FW yet).

Comment buried. Show
1. nowwhatareyoulookingat

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jul 2009

   -3
   11/24, 02:04am | report spam | close reply

   I would not touch these things

   It will be how long before you can buy a USB 3.0 host? And if this doesn't work well with it (as a 3.0 device), what will you be able to do 1 year from now?
   
   You might as well stick with proven interfaces (USB 2.0/FireWire/eSATA), and only buy USB 3.0 devices once USB 3.0 hosts start shipping in some volume (maybe even wait for multiple chipsets, rather than just Intel's version, just to wait for the compatibility kinks to get worked out).
   
   And give up on any faster version of FireWire. It's over. It's been what, more than 6 years since FW1600 was ratified, and almost 2 years since FW3200 was ratified. One company demoed a FW1600 implementation last year, but never shipped it. While Apple is notoriously tight lipped about future development, they aren't likely to go back to FireWire as well as USB 3.0, and maybe that new "Light Peak" technology. FireWire just has too much negative baggage with other manufacturers...

Comment buried. Show
1. iphonerulez

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2008

   +1
   11/24, 09:45am | report spam | close reply

   I hope FW isn't done for yet

   on Macs. The only way I can migrate my user accounts quickly is by using FW. Until Apple changes this situation, they'd better keep FW around. Why they don't allow user account migration by USB is beyond me. I don't care much about theoretical speeds, but it would have been nice for Apple to get some eSATA ports on some of their computers since external enclosures with that connector are in abundance. I'm happy with FW800 as it's relatively fast for my purposes.

Comment buried. Show
1. bjojade

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jun 2007

   +2
   11/24, 11:40am | report spam | close reply

   Why not ESATA?

   Because with ESATA, you can connect ONE device. Not a very versatile connector to be hanging out on the side of your laptop. Having both USB AND Firewire is pretty redundant too.
   
   When Lightpeak comes about, that will replace USB, Firewire, Ethernet AND your displayport connector. Now you're talking. One connection for everything. Simple. Clean. Fast.

Comment buried. Show
1. ggirton

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   -2
   11/24, 12:35pm | report spam | close reply

   my next computer

   has GOT to have lightspeed or whatever it's called. Unless I can't wait for the Quad27.
   
   I was saddened when the new macbook pro didn't have an expresscard, because I have an eSata (with TWO outlets BTW, not one) hanging out the left side. Quite a bit faster than current firewire or USB. But them's the way the apple bounces.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -2
   11/24, 01:09pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: Bad MAcNN

   Also, it should be noted that Buffalo is, frankly, talking out of their butts on their claim. USB3's maximum *THEORETICAL* speed is 5000mb (625MB) per second. No user will ever actually achieve anywhere near that speed, as USB3 requires a lot of overhead (which is why Firewire is STILL superior, even when slower!).
   
   And Firewire proponents are talking out of their butts when they say it transfers at 400Mb/s or 800 MB/s. Those are theoretical maximums as well.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -1
   11/24, 01:16pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: I would not touch these things

   It will be how long before you can buy a USB 3.0 host? And if this doesn't work well with it (as a 3.0 device), what will you be able to do 1 year from now?
   
   What do you mean by 'host'? You mean a computer with 3.0 built-in? Or a computer with a 3.0 card stuck in a slot (oh, right, you have a Mac, you probably don't have any expansion slots to add a 3.0 adaptor).
   
   You might as well stick with proven interfaces (USB 2.0/FireWire/eSATA), and only buy USB 3.0 devices once USB 3.0 hosts start shipping in some volume (maybe even wait for multiple chipsets, rather than just Intel's version, just to wait for the compatibility kinks to get worked out).
   
   So if Apple tomorrow released a Firewire 3200 capable computer and drives, would you also be telling people the same thing? Or would it all of a sudden become "King of the world again!".
   
   
   And it is amazing how so many have already bought Intel's hype on Light Peak (or, maybe, they saw Apple's name associated to it, so they were drinking the kool-aid). So far, no one has even said when chipsets would be available, let alone announced they were going to use the technology. But people here seem to think it will magically become this stable platform that all connections will be made through, and this will all appear next year.
   
   Of course, it only will help once you also update all your other hardware (displays, routers, printers, etc) to light peak versions. Or you'll have to hang a bunch of Light Peak to USB dongles onto your computer (you don't think Apple would go Light Peak and keep all those ancient interfaces like Firewire, USB, ethernet, etc, on their computers, would you? That wouldn't be forward thinking).

Comment buried. Show
1. shawnde

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2008

   +1
   11/25, 02:07am | report spam | close reply

   625MB/s ... Theoretically :-)

   Right .... and USB 2.0 was supposed to be faster than FW400 as well ... except that it didn't pan out that way, obviously because those are just "theoretical limits"; much like 1000BaseT Ethernet, which will NEVER reach 100MB/second !!! I'd love to see it with my own eyes!!
   
   USB 3, just like it's predecessor will probably provide 1/10th of it's theoretical limit at it's best case, meaning that in REAL environments it will provide roughy 50-60 MB/s, which would be faster than FW400 (not a breakthrough there) and slower than FW800 (pretty embarrasing).
   
   So, I'd actually like to see REAL benchmarks on a machine with a typical workload, before I believe these numbers.