Alright, So USB 2.0 is garbage and........
 

Alright, so USB 2.0 is garbage and since Firewire is on its way out, is this what we are going to be stuck with?

Heres my quarrel: USB 2.0 claims 480Mbps of transfer rate and never, NEVER has it ever even come close to that. I've tested a USB 2.0 Pocket Drive and a USB 2.0 external Drive. Both of which are slow as crap and it makes me wonder why the hell they're settling on garbage technology like this.

IF anyone can shed some light as to why the speeds are so slow for an advertised "high-speed" technology, I'd love to understand the contridicting results.

Firewire is not going anywhere.

The USB interface is only part of the speed equation with a hard drive. The speed of the drive and its IDE interface come into play, as do a dozen other things. USB also uses CPU power while FW doesn't, and FW has much more robust and error-free signalling. Kind of like Ethernet versus Token Ring; Ethernet never achieves its rated speed due to similar issues, but it's cheap. Token Ring did, but cost too much.

Don't confuse theoretical with actual speeds and bits with bytes. Though, I agree it's misleading. This site seems to pretty accurate. A google search for "USB 2.0 speeds" will reveal many sites explaining how cabling speeds works.

I know nothing of USB... anyone care to comment on the observations of USB speeds measured on the same Mac running OS X vs Windows (Boot Camp) in the linked post? Firewire speeds were comparable but USB performance in OS X seems to be lagging by a pretty big margin...
http://www.macintouch.com/readerrepo...topic4191.html

Obviously we have only the poster's word to go on and don't have any details about the conditions used but I was curious if any Intel Mac owners around here noticed anything similar...

hay guys i heard on the internet that firewire was dying

Seriously, though, have you looked at DV cameras? They're all FireWire. Apple has an entire microcosm inside the company devoted to digital media. Ignoring the fact that they actually sell their own FireWire-based camera, check it:

iMovie
iDVD (you gotta get your video from somewhere)
Final Cut Pro
Final Cut Express
DVD Studio Pro (see iDVD)

Good DV bridges are also FireWire. Let's not even mention the strength and popularity of FireWire audio devices.

Apple dropped FW800 on a single model because there weren't tons of people using it on the portables, two years after its introduction. No one bothers to mention that they kept FW400 ports on every single model. That's not news, so it isn't site traffic.

USB 2.0 isn't going to replace this stuff, because it's asynchronous: it has no method by which to guarantee precise timing between data nodes. FireWire is isosynchronous, and doesn't suffer from this. This is why you can't find a USB DV camera worth the gas it takes to pick it up from the store.

Edit: USB 2.0 isn't garbage; it's simply designed for a different market and overall purpose (cheaper, lower-performance devices; peripherals; and you're almost guaranteed that your users have the correct port). You wouldn't call FireWire crap just because you can't find a FireWire mouse, right?

Actually, there are some video cameras with both FireWire and USB now, and even a few with USB 2.0 only. But FireWire is still on most, and it's not going away. Quite a few PCs come with FireWire now, you never hear about it but just check the specs.

Here is a good article on why FireWire 400 is much faster than USB 2 in real use.

If FireWire is really dying, somebody needs to tell Yamaha before it's too late!

I'm afraid FireWire is losing the game.

My guess is SATA might take over for external disks as it offers reasonably handy cabling and speed and the rest, including hard-disc camcorders, will go with USB2, even if it is nothing but an ugly hack.

That wouldn't be the first time superior technology lost out in the market:
Macs vs. PCs (about to change ;) ), SCSI vs. IDE ...

SCSI vs. IDE isn't really a valid comparison for a few reasons. The top one is that no drive can have both, while as noted, many new DV cameras do. The incremental cost is a couple bucks. That has to be weighed against the tech support cost when someone calls because his camera is on the seventh hub away from his system and he drops frames every time he tries to make a movie.

USB certainly is going to remain more prevalent, but I've seen no shift in balance between the number FW and USB drives available in the last few years.

Come on, USB is crap. The fluff surrounding its inception and eventual wide-spread implementation was all based on close lab results that yielded, under perfect conditions mind you, a 480Mbps transfer rate. Now don't get me wrong, I think firewire is a FAR superior technology. I've tested several devices with it against similar USB devices and the results were decisive: firewire is just plain better. I tested slow HDs (sub 5400rpm) and fast HDs (5400 - 7200rpm) and the results were the same. Though USB and Firewire did perform better with the faster harddrives, it was still A FAR CRY from 480Mbps and 400Mbps. The conditions uder which the tests were run were obviously not in a "profession lab" setting because I'm not a professional lab-nut. However, for the common user, the conditions and equipment used could/would be similar.

I'm just trying to elicit the reasons why private-sector investment groups want to see a sub-par technology gain strength over a far superior one, like Firewire. I fail to see the reasoning other than the downplay of an impending standards-war. Even that is somewhat ridiculous, but I'd love to gain some insight if anyone has any comments.

sulo28, your opening remarks said that FireWire is on it's way out, which is contradictory to all evidence. FireWire as a technology will probably be eventually replaced, but that's definitely not happening in the short term. It's no more on it's way out than are DVDs. While we know that DVDs will eventually be replaced by another format with higher capacity, it's not happening anytime soon.

Now, you're saying that "private-sector investment groups want to see a sub-par technology gain strength over a far superior one". I'm not aware of any private sector investment groups doing that, unless you are calling Intel a private sector investment group. Intel, as the owner of USB 1.1 and USB 2.0, obviously would like to see it gain strength in the market.

Other companies look at the market and make decisions based on how much profit that they can make. If they think they can make a higher profit because USB 2.0 currently is more common on PCs than FireWire, then they will make a USB 2.0 product. If they understand that there is a technical reason why USB 2.0 is unsuitable for their product, but FireWire is suitable, then they will make a FireWire product.

If you are a company and you want to come out with an external hard drive, you could make it SCSI, USB 2.0, FireWire, or eSATA (among other choices). SCSI is less and less common except on the high end. eSATA is new and mostly untested. FireWire is a good choice, but USB 2.0 has the largest number of computers that will support it, and so companies that are cautious or are playing to the lowest common denominator may choose to release it as USB 2.0.

As usual, there's no conspiracy, just market forces.

Trevor

Way to define a use before saying that, chief. USB is good for some things, though not for DV/sustained high-bandwidth operations and latency-sensitive audio. It's also not as good as FireWire for storage. But my input devices seem to like it quite nicely, and it's useful for some people who don't have, for example, audio-in but don't have a need to shell out actual money for a FireWire bridge-in. (Think Griffin's iMic, which is a godsend for iBook owners who want to record a podcast or something.)

You mean like every other technology ever mentioned in a press release? I'm shocked. SHOCKED.

You did some "tests" and found the same thing every benchmarking site has found. That must mean your opinion that "USB is crap" is also 100% true.

Seriously, what's with the Mac user "omg usb sux0rz firewire is the only useful thing" stuff in this thread? Anyone whining about USB should step back and be REALLY HAPPY that we have good support for it. That awesome Logitech mouse you love? USB (when not wireless). Affordable non-laser printers? USB. Audio-in solutions for the non-pro market that don't cost a ton? USB. Joysticks for gaming? USB.

USB has a useful place in your array of ports. FireWire covers the high-end bases. Best of both worlds.

Edit: Spot-on, Trevor. Everything gets replaced eventually, and FireWire will be no different. For the foreseeable future, FireWire is bombtastic and not going anywhere.

Exactly, market forces that are driven by private/commerical interests. I've read several articles over the past fews months stating that Firewire, though a superior standard, is losing ground to USB 2.0 simply because PCs(natively running Windows) have embraced its inception. Now, I understand where you're coming from Trevor, however; I would argue that all evidence is definitely NOT showing that Firewire is just as prevelant as USB, and will remain so in both long and short term forecasts.

Apple itself has decided to embrace USB 2.0 for the newer generation of iPods. Check out the links below for some supporting documentation. PC market forces ignored, why is USB 2.0 getting the commendations that is does? I think my problem lies one simple question: why current USB 2.0 drives do not even COME CLOSE to the specified 400-480Mbps rates? Why do manufacturers insist on promoting its self-proclaimed greatness.

http://news.com.com/Apple+takes+a+st...3-5587951.html

http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html

Mikey -

Firstly, given the context of this discussion that the previous statements, USB is crap. Comparatively, USB is obviously inferior to Firewire for every use imaginable. If they made keyboards, mice, etc that were standardized in the firewire format, would they be better than the same devices standardized in the USB format? Yep.

I've stepped back and took a long, hard look at USB and only one thing comes to mind: we're being force-fed inferior technology and we like it, nay; except it.

I'm hearing alot of arguments saying that USB is useful for this and that. Yet, no one has directly answered or referred to my original question. I'm not trying step on any toes here, but I will say that I do not like any of the USB devices that I have. I don't "love" any of them. In fact, its a bit disconcerting that we're stuck with a prevelant, yet lackluster technology that should be performing MUCH better than it currently does. Thats my only quarrel. If it worked as advertised,we would not be having this discussion. Great arguments so far though. :D

USB succeeds because it's one of those "good enough" solutions, like Windows. It gets most of the job done. Look - if you build a computer, you must include a USB port because there are no FireWire mice and keyboards, but you don't have to include a FireWire port because USB 2 can handle hard drives. If cost is an issue and performance is not, you leave out FireWire because you can't leave out USB. That is really all there is to it.

I guess you could say that USB covers peripherals from the bottom up, and FireWire covers them from the top down. But many more users are at the bottom than at the top, so USB follows those numbers.

But again, if FireWire is really dying, why do many new PCs still have one?

Nope. You really need to define "better" when you use it in a context like this. What constitutes "better"? More expensive peripherals with no performance gains?

They'd be wastes of a good high-power bus. Why stop there? Why not gig-e keyboards and mice? Right tool for the right job, dude. Leave low-power peripherals on the USB ports and give me every bit of bandwidth available for my FireWire devices. Just because USB isn't good for a couple of things, and isn't as good as FireWire for others, doesn't mean it's useless or crap.

I really don't think you've thought this through nearly as much as you think you have, and that's supported by this repeated "USB is total crap, FireWire is better for everything under the Sun" stuff.

Did you guys forget that Apple pushed USB harder than most PC manufacturers?

I also find myself extremely annoyed at the juvenile thread title here. Is there something to be gained from badmouthing a perfectly functional interface, even if there are things FireWire does better?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record as of late, why is it even in Help Requests in the first place?

What I am saying is that FireWire is not on it's way out.

What you are saying in the quotation above is that FireWire is not as prevalent as USB.

Both of these statements are true, and they do not contradict each other.

Because an interface is more prevalent does not mean it has eliminated it's competition, or even IS ELIMINATING it's competition.

USB 2.0 is not going away in the short term, nor is FireWire.

If you are making a low-cost assembly, let's say a mouse, you do not want to use FireWire as the interface, since that will make a $40 USB mouse into a $100 FireWire mouse with no added function, no added advantage. Latency, bandwidth, power--all the clear advantages of FireWire, just don't apply to mice, which use microscopic bandwidth, easily tolerate the latency of USB 1.1, and have miniscule power requirements.

USB also has some real advantages over FireWire. You cannot plug a USB cable in upside-down, for example. Plugging a FW400 cable in upside down will blow out the PHY on your FireWire port, rendering it inoperable. And there is no danger in hot-plugging and hot-unplugging of USB peripherals, whereas in some rare cases hot-plugging FW peripherals can cause the loss of the PHY on your FireWire port, especially when using bus-powered FireWire.

Further info: FireWire Port Failures in Host Computers and Peripheral Devices

Trevor

Is there any point in history where that market distribution was not expected, by any company, including Apple?

It just seems like the idea "FireWire isn't going to be as big as USB" is just one big "well, duh."

Everyone has given ample advantages/disadvantages for both. I agree with every single one. Thats not the point of this post. All I want to know is why USB 2.0 is advertised 400-480Mbps when that speed can only be reached under the most controlled lab conditions. For the general user, such conditions are not practical.

Mikey, yes I have thought this through. While you insist on chastising me because of my dislike for USB with your devious remarks, you have failed to answer the posed question. I would have expected a more civil response (i.e. one without the sarcasm/derogatory statements. Intelligent conversation is a wonderful thing). Advantages and disadvantages are great and all, but thats not what I'm looking for.

I'd like to know why USB 2.0 does not live up to its advertised specs. My arguments are based on the premise that Firewire performs more closely to its specs than USB, thus; its better. I agree with advantages of USB and Firewire and all that. Great. No argument here.

And this post is in the help requests because I'm trying to understand the posed question.

The same question can be asked about many things: Why don't cars get anywhere near the mpg that they're rated for? How can diet pill makers claim to reduce body fat when combined with a sensable diet and exercise? Why doesn't a 300 GB hard drive come with 300 GB of free space? The answer isn't technical; it's in the marketing. If people buy it, they'll keep saying it.

The answer is simple: because it is pretty standard industry practise to advertise the nominal speeds/capacities of technology rather than the expected or average speeds/capacities.

Look at Ethernet, 802.11 wireless, disk drive capacities, battery life (of various items).

Firewire is an exceptional technology in that its actual performance is often close to its advertised maximum.
So your question shouldn't be "why is USB 2.0 garbage?" - instead it should be "why didn't Apple find some way to make the nominal speed of Firewire higher so they could advertise a higher number even though it wouldn't be achieved in practice?".

No, they would not be better. They would be at best the same technologically, but cost a lot more. So much for $25 keyboards. And you'd need more FW ports, which also cost more. And you'd have to avoid mixing asynchronous devices like keyboards and mice which would drag down the performance of the isosynchronous devices on the same bus. Etc, etc.

Please try to understand the technology before you make blanket statements about it.

Yes, but in the case of 802.11 and ethernet, overhead is to blame for the diminished throughput and eventual goodput. Could that be the case with USB? I suppose garbage is a bit harsh, but I've always been one to tell it like it is. If something doesn't live up to its advertised expectation, I tend to lash-out at the stupidity behind such claims. I don't blow sunshine up people's butts or cushion things just to appease other people. It is what it is. But you raise a good point; could overhead be a problem?

Unlike ethernet or WiFi, USB can be thought of as a closed system interface, meaning that you hook up a USB cable directly to a drive, and since it's not used for anything else, guarenteed delivery is expected. This of course excludes wireless USB mice because once communication leaves the confines of a guided medium, interference becomes a much larger problem, especially in the 2.4GHz region of the spectrum. However, for the sake of argument, we'll focus on wired USB devices since those are predominantly wired in nature.

Yes.
That seems like a more reasonable explanation than magic. :)

Thats why this post was in the "Help Requests" section. I'd like to understand it, thus the questions/statements. Please, by all means correct me; but do so in a civil way.

Thanks hayne. A simple explanation and some intelligent conversation was all I was looking for. Take care.

Giyf
 

Googling for: USB overhead
or: USB throughput
will find many useful articles explaining what you seem to want to know.
For example, look at this technical white paper on USB 1.0: http://www.usb.org/developers/whitepapers/bwpaper2.pdf

Even that example is much more complicated than is stated there. Ethernet may have to contend with overhead, but 802.11 also has to contend with noise and interference from other completely unrelated devices, range issues, radio blockage by obstacles... If someone wanted to protest USB for not reaching its full throughput, then to be proportional about it, they would have to start a major public campaign against how 802.11 often fails to reach 50% of the throughput advertised by Apple and everyone else.

It could be that companies advertise the ideal not just because it sounds better, but because it's simple. Ads would have to say "USB port could be really fast or really slow, depending; and FireWire port is usually a lot faster, most of the time, but not with a slow drive, etc..." I'm not sure how much of an improvement that would be.

Once again, I urge you to learn the technology before making such assumptions. Ethernet signaling at a simple level is not that different from USB (remember, I said SIMPLE level). I don't know what exactly you mean by "overhead" nor do I think you really do, but if you understood ethernet I doubt you'd make the statement above.

I'll use Ethernet vs. Token Ring as the example, simply because I understand it to a far deeper level than USB/FW details, but the same principles apply. Token Ring is like a well-moderated debate, where everyone waits to be called upon. Everyone must agree to this, and must wisely negotiate the process and how others may join. Firewire is like this also. Ethernet is a crowded room where people shout randomly, and if two people shout at the same time, both wait a random time and shout again, hopefully not colliding again. There is no intelligence or agreement. Therefore, Ethernet (USB) is far cheaper to implement and produce, and it also works extremely well when used properly. USB does a lot of things very well, and indeed, could do most things FW can do but with more demands on the system and user.

You definitely would not want a world with only FW, for the reasons I noted before regarding a FW keyboard or mouse.