OT: query for computer techs

Serena wrote on 9/24/2007, 12:50 AM

Reading a camera review in Sky & Telescope (not the sort of camera likely to attract attention here!) I was surprised by the statement: "Windows XP doesn't handle Firewire efficiently, since the peripheral standard for PCs is USB 2.0 . When a USB device is plugged into a PC, the OS detects it and allots memory to the peripheral ports, ensuring maximum performance. This isn't the case when a device is connected via Firewire."

In this particular review the camera initially performed poorly until the manufacturers provided a link to free software called "Firewire Performance Manager".

The review goes on to say that provided a USB device is already plugged in, then adding a Firewire device is fine. Otherwise not.

If this is all correct, I presume video capture software includes a firewire PM. Anyone like to comment?

Comments

John_Cline wrote on 9/24/2007, 1:59 AM

Based on everything I know, this is nonsense.

Chienworks wrote on 9/24/2007, 3:38 AM

Please ask what drugs the author was taking. Generally speaking firewire will always run more efficiently than USB. Firewire has built in controllers that handle the data transfer with almost zero drain on the PC. USB requires the PC's processor to handle the data transfer thus dragging the PC down. There is no software required to 'assist' firewire.

Serena wrote on 9/24/2007, 4:12 AM

I think a letter-to-the-editor is coming on! The statements certainly surprised me, but I possess a well founded ignorance in the field of computer operating systems. Thanks for comments.

Soniclight wrote on 9/24/2007, 6:10 AM

Yup, sounds like misinformation to me. I've used both types and long ago switched to Firewire on my humble XP Home. Hell, I even pulled out the front-end USB ports and cables; they're sitting in my "misc. computer stuff" drawer :)

The only thing I use the in-board USB port is for the dongle needed for my Stainberg Cubase SX3 music production software. They had to go that security route because people were making crack copies of the application all over the place.

MarkWWWW wrote on 9/24/2007, 6:14 AM

It's nonsense. Or, to be more charitable, whoever wrote the review has completely misunderstood and misrepresented the situation.

As the others have said, Firewire is actually more efficent in practice than USB2.0 as the firewire controller looks after the transfer all by itself, whereas with USB the CPU is constantly involved supervising the transfer of data.

The "Firewire Performance Manager" referred to is actually a bit of software that adds a new battery profile to a laptop to prevent it trying to turn off the firewire port in order to save power. If the reason you are having trouble with dropped frames is that you laptop is turning off its firewire ports to save power and you don't know how to configure your system not to do this any other way then it may be that this "Firewire Performance Manager" would be of help to you. But if you have your laptop configured not to turn off its firewire ports to save power, or if you are not using a laptop, then this is not going to help at all.

Mark

farss wrote on 9/24/2007, 6:19 AM

I agree the article is wrong but there's another related issue worth a mention. Firewire seems to be slowly fading away, shame really, I quite like 1394b.

Bob.

ECB wrote on 9/24/2007, 6:30 AM

The editor comments may be leftover from this problem
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885222