Comments

HeeHee wrote on 8/12/2002, 4:11 PM
There isn't much of a difference. USB 2.0 runs at a max 480 megabits per sec whereas 1394 firewire runs at a max 400mbps. Both are equally sufficient for video editing. Both hard drive solutions actually use IDE hard drives.

I would suggest getting a firewire version since you already have an open firewire port. You would have to buy an add-on card for the USB 2.0 since most computers, except for very new systems, have USB 2.0 ports built on.
Shredder wrote on 8/12/2002, 4:12 PM
Technically speaking, the main difference is in the speed, Firewire is 400Mbps & USB2.0 is 480MBps.

While I have a firewire drive right now, in the future I'd get a USB2.0 drive, because Firewire is 'niche' to the video market, while USB2.0 will be universally standard in no time. Every computer made from now on will have USB 2.0 ports, so you can take your drive to a friend's house & copy big files etc.

Right now I can't do that, as most of my friends don't have 1394 cards. As much as I love 1394, I don't see it ever becoming as standard as USB2.0

Plus, since USB2.0's got higer throughput, could can daisy-chain drives with less of a performance hit.

- Jon
kkolbo wrote on 8/12/2002, 7:38 PM
Just a note. The firewire standard is about to move to 800mbs. Who knows what will be out the next day. Mac is announcing the GigaPort.

K
fosko wrote on 8/13/2002, 7:09 AM
Hmmm, will this new protocall require anew 1394 card ? If I buy a firewiee drive now will it be 800 mbs. I guess what I'm windering is if the sppeed is deppendant on the card or the hardware
salad wrote on 8/13/2002, 9:04 AM
Rediculous.
Soon we'll have both USB standards onboard and then maybe 2 1394 standards.
Soon PCI slots will be a thing of the past. Are you ready for 8X AGP.....
Let's not get into DVD......they are already talking about this becoming a thing of the past with this Hologram technology.........100+ GB on a "clear" DVD sized disc.

OK, back to VV3 stuff...:-)
kkolbo wrote on 8/13/2002, 9:13 AM
Yes, both the interface card and the hardware will have to be new ones made to the new standard. Things change so fast that the best thing to do is to make a choice based on what you find today and what is the best buy right now. It will all be different tomorrow.


K
riredale wrote on 8/13/2002, 1:14 PM
I also read somewhere in the past couple of days that Apple is dropping the licensing fees for the Firewire protocol and the use of the "Firewire" name. I am assuming this probably because Apple is watching the rapid adoption of USB2 with alarm. Firewire is entrenched in video, but I guess Apple wants it to be a common port on PCs and laptops, too.
vinmangraphics wrote on 8/13/2002, 2:00 PM
I've read a couple places that even though the theoretical maximum throughput of USB2 is higher than that of firewire - real world tests have firewire speeds beating it.

I can't remember where I saw a more in-depth coverage, but a quick google search turned up the following site:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/

The other difference I've heard, which I believe he mentions in the link above is that USB devices require the CPU for communication, whereas data can transfer between two firewire devices without the CPU needing to intervene (I'm assuming as long as they're on the same controller).

I don't have a USB2 controller, so can't offer any benchmarks of my own.



- vin




DataCowboy wrote on 8/13/2002, 3:20 PM
USB requires a computer of some sort, that's a major reason why Yamaha's mLan is Firewire based. It's also quite a benefit for dealing with non-computer-based systems in video as well.

Apple's moves to reduce the licensing fee and give away some helpful Firewire software are pretty much to make up for the massive delay in getting 800Mbps out the door (they predict mid-to-late Q4 of this year) that allowed USB to jump ahead in the Mbps count.

Hex
HeeHee wrote on 8/13/2002, 4:15 PM
Typically the devices that run on any interface are backwards compatible. In other words, a 800mbps firewire drive (Not out yet), would work on a 400mbps 1394 interface card and visa versa. It would just run at the slower rate.
Control_Z wrote on 8/14/2002, 9:06 AM
Right. To cut down on cost, Intel's implementation of USB1/2 uses the CPU. With fast modern CPUs this may not be an issue, but then again who needs the extra worry when dealing with video?
fosko wrote on 8/14/2002, 11:19 AM
So, it sounds like there's not much differnece in speed betwen USB2 & Firewire . .and from Cowboy and Control's posts .. it's not running off the CPU.. so less strain in it ?

Soounds like the bigger advantage of USB2 would be its universal availability. Knowing I can take it to any (modern) computer.
Cheesehole wrote on 8/14/2002, 11:05 PM
>>>Right. To cut down on cost, Intel's implementation of USB1/2 uses the CPU.

intel is in the business of selling CPU cycles. it is to their advantage to push standards that will create and maintain demand for their product. (IDE / USB instead of SCSI / Firewire)