I remember during the USB 1.1 & 2 days, Firewire was touted as a high speed alternative which could change the game. But it seemed to have been ignored or not as popular as it touted to be.
Currently USB 3.0 seems to be the king.
Am I wrong to assume Firewire lost the race (and steam)?
Apple was probably the biggest supporter of Firewire. There was a time when every Mac and iPod supported some form of Firewire while it was still rare to see on PC's. It was around the time when Apple started removing Firewire support from Macs and iPods that it began dying out. High speed SATA devices also had a hand in killing it off. USB 3.0 was just the final nail in the coffin. Once motherboard manufacturers started including both high speed SATA and USB 3.0, why did you really need Firewire anymore? It was just another licensing fee they would have to pay to include it and it was of questionable value at that point.
I've been working as a lab assistant helping around a computer class full of Prescott P4 for several months. The computers had some Gigabyte S478 motherboard with add-on FireWire cards using proprietary interface. Each had 4 FireWire ports on the back, 2 on the front, 0 of them have seen use. I came to a conclusion that it was pretty much DOA, an interface which had nothing to interface with.
btw, I've never touched a FireWire cable. Ever 😀
Firewire was mostly on video cameras AFAIK.
Audigy 1 and 2 have a firewire port. Lots of motherboards started to include it too. But unless you were into video recording, you barely had a use for it.
You can plug two computers together with Firewire and have a 400mbps network connection. That was somewhat interesting prior to cheap gigabit. There are firewire hubs so you can make a little network out of it.
The main advantage to FireWire was that you knew right away if you were holding it wrong.
wrote:Firewire was mostly on video cameras AFAIK.
Audigy 1 and 2 have a firewire port. Lots of motherboards started to include it too. But unless you were into video recording, you barely had a use for it.
You can plug two computers together with Firewire and have a 400mbps network connection. That was somewhat interesting prior to cheap gigabit. There are firewire hubs so you can make a little network out of it.
I've always wanted to try Firewire networking, though I've never had the equipment for it. Does it have any advantages over gigabit ethernet?
wrote:Firewire was mostly on video cameras AFAIK.
Audigy 1 and 2 have a firewire port. Lots of motherboards started to include it too. But unless you were into video recording, you barely had a use for it.
You can plug two computers together with Firewire and have a 400mbps network connection. That was somewhat interesting prior to cheap gigabit. There are firewire hubs so you can make a little network out of it.
Video cameras and audio equipment - there were quite a few very nice external audio interfaces that use FW, and were able to achieve lowering monitoring latency than USB could ever touch. External hard-drives used it for a while, but I think the cost of USB 2.0 and the proliferation of eSATA pretty much killed that off. As far as networking, it was neat but Microsoft killed support for it with Windows Vista, and Gigabit Ethernet got cheap (and gives you a lot more options). AFAIK you can run the 800Mbit variant for networking as well, again assuming you're using Windows XP (I think Windows 2000 may support it) or OS X. Gigabit is still faster and more flexible for networking though.
It was also briefly used for HDV recording/transfer for D-VHS and HDTV - that format didn't last very long though.
I think it would be safe to say that aside from supporting older external hardware, it is dead in modern terms; there are more common interfaces available for whatever task, and in many cases they surpass FireWire when it comes to their specific task (like Ethernet or eSATA).
Mr_Bigmouth:
Only certain operating systems actually support it (e.g. Windows Vista, 7, and 8 do not); as far as versus Gigabit Ethernet, no it doesn't have any advantages beyond being "point to point" if you had two machines, but Ethernet can do that too, and is better than twice as fast. The ability to use a router or switch or what-have-you is a definite advantage for Ethernet.
wrote:wrote:Firewire was mostly on video cameras AFAIK.
Audigy 1 and 2 have a firewire port. Lots of motherboards started to include it too. But unless you were into video recording, you barely had a use for it.
You can plug two computers together with Firewire and have a 400mbps network connection. That was somewhat interesting prior to cheap gigabit. There are firewire hubs so you can make a little network out of it.
I've always wanted to try Firewire networking, though I've never had the equipment for it. Does it have any advantages over gigabit ethernet?
It has one small yet significant advantage. If you already have both IEEE1394 and Ethernet interfaces integrated into your motherboard, you can connect to 2 separate networks without the second LAN card.
For example, connect your retro gear to your main PC via Fire-Wire. Thus retro PC is cut off from the internet, while both internet and retro PC are easily accessible through your main PC. However, with LAN cards/cables worth next to nothing, IEEE1394 rare and direct connection unsupported since Vista, this does not have much of a use.
I used to use firewire for my external HD backups. It was much faster and more reliable than USB. Haven't touched it since I moved to using external NAS.
EDIT
eSATA is a PITA for external hard drives.
Like others said, Firewire was mostly prominent in video cameras and such. I think it is worthwhile to note that e-SATA also managed to "steal" some potentials users away. Not that e-SATA was really successful.
This is all starting to become a moot point as USB 3.0 is becoming all the more prominent.
I also used firewire for my external HDD backups. At the time, I was using an ATI 8500DV AGP graphics card, which has a firewire port on the graphics card. I found this combo graphics card pretty convient and it kept me from needing to buy a USB 2.0 card for some time.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
I guess USB 3.0 also slammed the door hard on eSATA too, which was looking promising during the USB 2.0 reign.
So is eSATA faster than Firewire?
wrote:I guess USB 3.0 also slammed the door hard on eSATA too, which was looking promising during the USB 2.0 reign.
So is eSATA faster than Firewire?
There are two Firewire specifications. One for 400mbps and a faster one at 800mbps. Some G4 PowerMacs had both but then Apple split them off and made the 800mbps variant available only on professional grade Macs while consumer models had to make do with 400mbps. The white Macbooks still had a 400mbps Firewire port as recently as early 2009 which was long after Firewire was dropped entirely from the Unibody Macbook Pro line.
The USB vs. Firewire battle was won by USB because each Firewire device needs more circuitry and therefore cost more to produce. I used Firewire to download video from a camera for a DVD project. That was a few years ago though; I've been using USB lately.
wrote:So is eSATA faster than Firewire?
eSATA is a SATA port from your motherboard connected to an external drive by essentially a somewhat beefier SATA cable. So it's up to 6 Gbps. Lots faster.
wrote:eSATA is a PITA for external hard drives.
Whats wrong with esata ?
I use it its much better than usb imho
Guardian of the Sacred Five Terabyte's of Gaming Goodness
wrote:Like others said, Firewire was mostly prominent in video cameras and such. I think it is worthwhile to note that e-SATA also managed to "steal" some potentials users away. Not that e-SATA was really successful.
This is all starting to become a moot point as USB 3.0 is becoming all the more prominent.
Legacy connectors are never a moot point at Vogons 🤣
Kidding aside, I actually still use the Firewire port on my Core2Duo system for connecting to my external SATA hard drive dock. I for one hope that Firewire sticks around as long as possible just for the sole reason that I do prefer having as many legacy connectors on a modern motherboard as possible. I hate that many modern MB's leave out PS/2 connectors and FDD interfaces now. I hate having to use stupid USB to PS/2 adapters for my Core@Duo system just so I can hook it up to my main PS/2 KVM switch...it's so inconvenient for someone like me who likes to use old tech with newer tech. For this reason, I still feel PS/2 ports are still relevant as well as firewire, because if I find an old used HDD dock for cheap, for example (like the one I have that has Firewire and USB 2.0), I want to have the option to use Firewire. for people that still buy old used hardware accessories that is much cheaper than buying new in most cases, any and all legacy ports are welcome on any new MB that comes out, no matter how new.
BTW, I felt the same about parallel ports when they started being phased out. I like my old printers and I liked having the option of using them with newer MB's...now I have finally gave in to getting a USB printer even though there was nothing wrong with my parallel one....*sigh* forced to use new technology again 😒 , but I did just get a parallel to usb adapter that I am going to try out soon...hope it works.
wrote:There are two Firewire specifications. One for 400mbps and a faster one at 800mbps. Some G4 PowerMacs had both but then Apple split them off and made the 800mbps variant available only on professional grade Macs while consumer models had to make do with 400mbps. The white Macbooks still had a 400mbps Firewire port as recently as early 2009 which was long after Firewire was dropped entirely from the Unibody Macbook Pro line.
Technically there exists FireWire 1600 and 3200 as well (there's more than two formally defined IEEE-1394 specs); it's meant to be pin-compatible with the 9-pin FW800 connector. It's relatively rare though, afaik; I think 1600 made it to market in the form of adapter cards, but probably not much else. The only real use I'd see for 1600/3200 these days would be faster-than-GbE networking between two machines, if you have the connectors and aren't using Vista or later (there is a 3rd-party driver to enable IP Support for Vista-8 via FW, but I've read that it isn't the most stable thing known to man).
FW800 isn't entirely tied-up for Macs - add-in boards exists to bring it to PCs. Like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Vantec-FireWire-PCIe-Co … /dp/B004QY7M3Y/
TBH I think anything beyond USB2.0/FW400 has limited applications for consumers beyond external hard-drives (that is, I don't think any of those devices are "making do" or "struggling"); really how much bandwidth does your keyboard, printer, or other desk doodad need? 🤣
wrote:The USB vs. Firewire battle was won by USB because each Firewire device needs more circuitry and therefore cost more to produce.
This isn't entirely accurate - USB requires a bus master and offloads a lot of the complexity onto that device (and therefore limits the kinds of things you can plug together and what they can do) whereas FW works point-to-point. For example using FW you can plug your cable box into your VCR, or printer into your scanner; USB can't accomplish that unless one of those devices is substantially more complex.
FW can also carry significantly more power than USB, potentially allowing less complexity in the peripheral and reducing the need for wall-warts/cabling for basic external devices. This would reduce costs for the device as it wouldn't need to bring its own power supply and wouldn't need as much internal circuitry. My guess is it's six of one, half a dozen of the other at the end of the day - each has its upsides and downsides.
From what I had heard at the time, Apple held the patent and other manufacturers had to license it from an overzealous Apple. If I am remembering correctly,Sony did not even call theirs Firewire.
wrote:From what I had heard at the time, Apple held the patent and other manufacturers had to license it from an overzealous Apple. If I am remembering correctly,Sony did not even call theirs Firewire.
It's technically IEEE-1394, and maintained/developed by the 1394 Working Group. TI and Sony were also involved in development/etc. Sony released their own "variant" which they marketed as "i.LINK" - the big difference being that it didn't generally carry power (I've only ever seen this on cameras as well). TI sometimes calls it "Lynx" in their own marketing literature (I've never seen this on a commercially released product - only TI documents). I don't think Apple wielded total control over the standard, they were just one of the biggest promoters and invested quite heavily in it - like they have done with OpenCL and other techs over the years.
Wiki says that 1394 is actually protected by over 200 different patents (held by a variety of companies), and licenced thru MPEG LA as a "pool" - just like other big standards. FWIW.
