[MacDEF]

Let me be more precise (it's what I meant, but figured there weren't too many people as geeky as myself

):

Let's just say that OS X's BSD base allows it to smoke 2K and XP in networking speeds

 

[e-r0ck]

Has anyone here seen the specs for the new Archos Multimedia device. Its isane. the Archos Recorder unit was great in sound quality and the fact that you can record, this new unit will inclue those PLUS a whole bunch of other things. It's supposed to come out in February I think. check it out:

display unit at COMDEX

Specs sheet.

I think it looks sweet, and they said a retail price of $300. Seems a little low, but thats what I heard.

 

[Vertigo-1]

Ok, now that Archos has me saying *wow*. Camera and video capabilities?

This one should be for the high school girls...then they won't have to always lug around 35mm cameras and keep big binders of photos under their armpits all the time.

 

[utdeep]

USB 2.0 is @#%$ fast. Faster than firewire. And backwards compatible.
But damnit... just make it an mp3 player, not some dumb digital convergence device!!

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by utdeep USB 2.0 is @#%$ fast. Faster than firewire. And backwards compatible. But damnit... just make it an mp3 player, not some dumb digital convergence device!!

Faster than Firewire 1.0 in burst mode, but not sustained. And certainly not faster than Firewire 2.0.

Can you even name a single OS or device that actually uses USB 2.0? Microsoft even dropped support for it in XP, and they're practically in bed with Intel.

 

[chych]

Well, third party makers like Keyspan have their software to make their USB 2 cards work on both PC and Mac... though there are like 2 devices out there that can use USB 2.

I'd still stick with firewire though, simply because it isn't regulated by software .'. better performance.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

USB 2.0 is @#%$ fast. Faster than firewire. And backwards compatible.

Actually, not really true on either count. USB 2.0 isn't really that fast, and its "backwards compatibility mode" is bass-ackwards

I'm going to paraphrase/quote some stuff I wrote in another thread...

The fundamental technology behind FireWire is far superior to USB 2.0. Even good IDE connections are faster than the current implementation of USB-2.

USB and USB-2, like IDE drives but even more so, are highly dependent on your computer's processor. Doing anything else at the same time can significantly slow down the transfer rate. Since FireWire has its own independent controllers built in, its data transfer rates are higher, even at the same spec (i.e. 400Mb/s vs. 400Mb/s). Another bonus for FireWire is that it is device independent -- you don't need a host computer to connect. You can actually directly hook up two video cameras. FireWire also has the ability to broadcast, which USB-2 doesn't.

USB-2 also has other drawbacks. The bandwidth of a USB-2 connection is split into fixed proportions -- if you have two devices attached, each can only get the maximum of 1/2 the total bandwidth, even if the other is idle. So if you have a mouse and a hard drive on a USB-2 bus, they each get half the bandwidth, even though the mouse obviously doesn't need more than a fraction of it. Some analysts have forecasted that "real-world" use of USB-2 bandwidth could be around 58Mb/s. Also, if you introduce a USB 1.x device into a USB-2 chain, the whole chain can slow to USB 1, depending on the device and controller.

Finally, USB-2 itself is not backwards-compatible. In order to be "backwards-compatible" with USB, USB-2 devices need to incorporate multiple chipsets, so the purported "cheaper" cost of USB-2 (as compared to FireWire) isn't as cheap as you might think.

The other hurdle that USB-2 will have to overcome as a high-speed data transfer connection is the fact that it also has to allow slower devices to co-exist. USB-2 is Intel's way to replace *both* USB and FireWire, so it can be used with both low-speed and high-speed devices. Under USB 1.1, 90% of bandwidth is guaranteed for isochronous transfers (data from sources such as video and audio controllers), while only 10% of the bandwidth is guaranteed for bulk transfers. Of course bulk transfers can *use* much more, but in order to ensure that "more important" data (such as mouse movements and video) has priority, the 10/90 guaranteed bandwidth rule was devised. If this holds true under USB-2, you may never see the promised speeds of 400Mb/s.

What it comes down to is that USB was designed to be a convenient replacement for serial, PS/2, and, to some extent, parallel ports -- low-speed connections. FireWire was designed from the start to be a convenient, high-speed connection for large, fast transfers of bulk data. USB-2 is an attempt to make FireWire out of USB, but unfortunately it's not working. It will probably end up being widespread, but that's more because it's an Intel technology that they can throw on motherboards for cheap than because it's actually a good technology.

As for right now, FireWire is much more widespread. Even Microsoft considered not supporting USB-2 natively. FireWire is quickly becoming the standard for A/V data transfers, with every modern digital video camera and every Sony and Apple computer sporting FireWire ports. Many other PC manufacturers offer it as an inexpensive option.

Oh, and FireWire will be at 1600Mb/s pretty soon

 

[grrr223]

I have over 30 gig of MP3s, unfortunately, the iPod would only hold 5 of them (if I were fortunate enough to have $400 free). I also listen to about 8 hours of music a day, and at the moment I'm constantly acquiring more music all the time. I would probably be transferring files on and off of the iPod daily, and I don't feel like waiting around while they load through USB. I saw my friend using the iPod, it doesn't take much longer for the songs to load than it did for him to select which ones to drag over to it.

 

[freethetree]

>>Let's just say that OS X's UNIX base allows it to smoke 2K and XP in networking speeds

Cant forget that all the new G4s come stock with gigabit ethernet

. All that ads up to some speedy networkin! Do PCs even come with network cards?

 

[Xevion]

freethethree - Every PC I make tends to have a network card or two, often a pair of video cards (Once you go dual monitor, you never go back), and if I needed gigabit ethernet (Which noone outside of DTP/video editing really needs at all at the user level). Many PCs come with them now at the retail level, but all retail PCs suck, so they don't count. Only homebuilt ones, or ones made by small shops. 100bt won't seem much slower then 1000bt anyway, since the limitation is treally starting to be the hard disks that are transferring the files.

I haven't done much with my PC in the past year, but the only thing it is lacking is Firewire and USB 2.0, and I don't have a need for them.

And while the max transfer rate of USB is higher then 10bt ethernet, I find ethernet a much better connection. Also, I don't know about whether USB is full duplex or half duplex, but I know ethernet is full duplex. Also, with the ethernet, you can have multiple connections (depends on the player's software), and also use it as a server (Which I assume you can do with the ipod too)

I don't particularly care for USB, but compared to serial connections it is nice. I don't have much of a need for peripherals however, as the biggest uses of my PC are music, games, and internet browsing. I would much rather use, uhh, bluetooth

.

If I can find a place to fix my old Sony E400, I will have 2 19" monitors

. Once my new Samsung 900NF comes in I shall post a new pic of my rig, both PC and headphone setup, although the latter isn't very impressive (I got the other one friday but sent it back because idiots at UPS dropped something very heavy on it. GRRR)

Also, many motherboards support firewire, not just Sony and Apple computers have firewire, I think the majority of Compaqs do, and some HPs do too. My homebuilt ones have whatever they need.

And while Firewire is superior to USB, USB 2 is fine for the majority of the applications it will be used for.

But I still find the players far from revolutionary.