Comments on: Finally, I can talk about FireWire S3200

By: Christopher Price

Christopher Price — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:50:39 +0000

Ch, I don’t know where you got the impression that FireWire S3200 would be available this year. I think you may have gotten that from misguided rumor sites, some of which predicted/guessed that the new MacBook Pro would carry FireWire S3200.

I’m surprised you have have so much dislike for a port, as to hate it. I really don’t care, I’ve advocated for FireWire-over-Ethernet as a middle ground solution… I’m just glad I don’t have to hate ports.

By: ch

ch — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:59:50 +0000

Where are our 3.2gb/s ports, chris? Where are they?

Firewire should die. I hate it, I never have anything that uses it when my computer does have the port, and when I have something that needs it my computer doesn’t have it.

By: MegaZone

MegaZone — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:29:54 +0000

Well, S3200 is port-interop with 1394b. Same port, same cable. But it doesn’t look like anyone is making it compatible with 1394a. So anyone who has 1394b on their products today could readily update to S3200 in future products – but that’s not much of an advantage considering how weak 1394b has been.

By: Christopher Price

Christopher Price — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:19:27 +0000

S3200 hopes to gain higher utilization of the rate of speed versus SATA. The FireWire TA hopes that it will be similar to USB 2.0, in that max actual speeds will rate in at 1.5 times faster, rather than the theoretical maximum burst rate.

Nobody is saying that FireWire will proliferate as high as USB. It never has and it never will. FireWire is a premium option meant for maximum performance. At least now it can re-actualize that goal.

What I hope is that someone comes up with a port-interop with 1394a, such that PC makers will be able to trade FireWire 400 ports for S3200 ports. This will allow makers to quickly adopt the technology without the added expense of having to have a USB 2.0, eSATA, 1394a, and now S3200 port.

If USB and SATA can do it, why not the FireWire TA? I think it’s reasonable that they will…

By: MegaZone

MegaZone — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:13:12 +0000

eSATA is up to 3Gbps, while S3200 is 3.2Gbps – how is it 1.5x faster? Also, since the drive in the enclosure is probably going to be SATA anyway, you won’t see any performance advantage from S3200 over using the native SATA interface. (And it might suffer depending on the FW-to-SATA interface in the enclosure.) The only benefit to S3200 would be the ability to supply power over the same cable, eSATA doesn’t.

Personally, I don’t have high hopes for S3200. I think it’ll bomb just like FW800. Most of the PC industry is backing USB, including the development of USB 3.0 which is supposedly going to be at least 4.8Mbps to start. Since Intel, HP, Microsoft, etc, are all involved in the development of USB 3.0, I don’t see them incorporating S3200 in their products. And Apple seems to have nearly forgotten FW exists.

It is a feedback loop. Since PCs have USB ports, all the peripheral makers design their products with USB. And since the market is packed with USB products, PC makers don’t want to spend the money adding other ports to their products. USB has critical mass to keep feeding on itself, and FW failed to hit that point. Now it has a much higher barrier to gain traction in the market.