Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] Firewire Bus'
On 7-May-09, at 12:06 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> How many Mac users are here?
> How many of you have (or even use :-) ) firewire?
> ...and How many have (or even use) firewire but _not_ with Mac? --
> Me is
> already one
Tag changes to OT as requested. Survey says, it's been very useful.
Long time Mac user and solid member of Apple geekdom. I have
Firewire on three different models of G4 computers, 2 "towers" and a
Mac-mini, as well as an Intel based laptop (MacBook). For the 2 G4
desktop "towers" Firewire (2 ports each) was the only way to go since
they originally came with USB 1.0 ports and the internal IDE
controllers limited hard disk size to 128GB. The two G4s were
introduced late 1999 to early 2002 both were bought used. The
Firewire ports allowed attachment of larger disk drives, video
capture devices, and SONY camcorders. Best performance was achieved
with a drive and video capture device on each Firewire port.
I would routinely capture on one G4, near the TV (poor man's TiVo),
to a Firewire attached hard drive, then sneaker net the hard drive to
the faster G4 (dual processor) at my computer desk for editing and
DVD burning. So Firewire has extended the useful life of the old G4s.
Also allowed the attachment of an external DVD player, so it could be
used, where necessary, amongst the various computers. Not a big deal
now, with cheap DVD burners, but when they first came out not so many
years ago, they were pricey.
I've also tested the G4 Macmini, with its single Firewire port, with
both a video capture device daisy-chained with an external hard
drive. Video was captured successfully without dropped frames. Files
accumulate at around 13GB per hour of video.
Only problem I found, was that multiple hard drives daisy-chained in
cases of the same type only allow one drive to be mounted. And was
definitely not happy with an IDE connected Firewire card.
So Apple decided on Firewire for video capture when USB was
incapable. And allowed limited footprint computers (laptops, Macmini)
to expand hard drive capacity, and optical drive capability,
externally, and at full speed.
So overall I've been very happy with firewire. Perhaps Firewire's
time has past and I'll be happy with USB in the future, I guess. Or
something new will be available when/if I buy my next computer. Not
happy right now with SATA drives being less than IDE, but the
external enclosures still relatively (Firewire to IDE) expensive.
|Another Mac user. 3 self-built external hard drives using FireWire,
one external DVD burner, formerly an iPod (doesn't work on the new
iPhone) and a DV camera. Also have a Windows PC with FireWire - used
from time to time, not that often - and Linux machine - just installed
the card, no chance to use it yet. All the drives on the Mac were at
one time daisy-chained (multiples of the same type), but I've moved to
a FireWire hub because neither my portable hard drive nor iPod had a
second port for pass-through.
The advantages of FireWire for hard drives are fairly strong - about
twice as fast as USB2 hard drives from what I recall. That's assuming
minimal seeking, of course. There's also enough power from one
FireWire cable to power a small external hard drive - every 2.5" USB
enclosure I've ever purchased comes with a weird USB cable to draw
power from two ports, because 500mA simply isn't enough.
My friends who do audio editing tell me that all their gear uses
FireWire - from a latency and bandwidth perspective, USB doesn't even
come close. Same deal with video. They were *incredibly* annoyed when
Apple released the new MacBooks sans FireWire - they like the smaller
computer for portability, but NEED to be able to use their gear in the
field. Nothing quite like being painted into a corner by your
supplier, I guess.
A word of warning to those looking for FireWire hard drives: look for
Oxford Semiconductor chipsets wherever possible. I've had a bit of bad
luck with the Prolific chips, but no problems with Oxford ones.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 03:12, Heinz Czychun <lks.net> wrote: hczychun
William \Chops\ Westfield
On May 8, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Randy Glenn wrote:
>>> ow many Mac users are here?
>>> How many of you have (or even use :-) ) firewire?
>>> ...and How many have (or even use) firewire but _not_ with Mac?
Me. Use Mac as main, preferred system.
Use firewire pretty extensively for video input from camcorder, and have
done so since before USB2.0 existed.
Also have a firewire flash card reader (since the mac I had longest
had only USB1.1, and the flash cards kept getting bigger), and several
And I've used the Mac's "Target" mode to move files from old mac to
I also have and use PCs, and I've bought firewire cards for several
PCs to share those disks (as well as to have the possibility of video
import on them, though I don't think I've ever used it.)
Frankly, I think my firewire usage is going down. USB2 is good enough
for the backup disks (and significantly cheaper), and I really don't
enjoy the "realtime" aspect of video import from the tape camcorders.
I expect video to go faster-than-real-time importable (via non-tape
media and compression) for me "soon."
I use Macs and Windows and Linux. I love Firewire for it's
performance and if it is a dead technology, I will miss it.
Firewire was always more reliable than USB for me.
I didn't know anything about Firewire until recently - when I had to
attach a debugger to a Windows based system. Sound to me anything has
been replaced by USB nowadays.
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM, WH Tan <gmail.com> wrote: whsiung.my
> I didn't know anything about Firewire until recently - when I had to
> attach a debugger to a Windows based system. Sound to me anything has
> been replaced by USB nowadays.
That is true. USB debugging for Windows kernel using Windbg was not
supported until recently and it is only for Vista. 1394 is used more widely
(supported since XP) along with serial.
Brian B. Riley
Nope ... 1394 was native (thats is to say it was there in the main
body, it didn't have to be selectively invoked) in Win 98.
On May 9, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> (supported since XP) along with serial.
cheers ... 73 de brian riley, n1bq , underhill center, vermont
<http://web.mac.com/brianbr/> Tech Blog
Home of the
K107 Serial LCD Controller Kit FT817 Power Conditioner Kit
Tab Robot Laser Tag Kit MSP430 Chips and Connectors
Propeller Robot Controller SX48 "Tech Board" Kit
PICAXE chips and accessories Freeduino systems
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Brian B. Riley <mac.com> wrote: brianbr
> Nope ... 1394 was native (thats is to say it was there in the main
> body, it didn't have to be selectively invoked) in Win 98.
If you read my post, I mean 1394 kernel debugging is supported
in XP. I do not think it is the case for Windows 98.
Brian B. Riley
I spoke to soon, my bad, your are indeed correct.
On May 9, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009
, 2010 only
- New search...