FireWire ports

S

shurcooL

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,125
Is anyone else looking forward to the day they stop putting in FireWire ports into the new Macs (e.g. iMac, Thunderbolt Display)?

imagezj.png


At this point, with Thunderbolt, FireWire just seems like a legacy port that I have absolutely no use for, so I'd prefer not to have it if I were to buy a new Mac in the future.

Does anyone actually use it?
 
Last edited:
It appears to be headed that way, but yes, I still used my FW800 port as a faster way of import pictures to my MBP for editing. Also, a few clients use theirs for external drives for time machine due to the faster speeds compared to USB 2.0. Thunderbolt devices just haven't caught up/become affordable as their USB or FireWire counterparts.
 
shurcooL said:
Is anyone else looking forward to the day they stop putting in FireWire ports into the new Macs (e.g. iMac, Thunderbolt Display)?

imagezj.png


At this point, with Thunderbolt, FireWire just seems like a legacy port that I have absolutely no use for, so I'd prefer not to have it if I were to buy a new Mac in the future.

Does anyone actually use it?
Click to expand...

I will use mine for my portable drive until TB externals become reasonably priced.

For now it looks this way: 1.5TB 2.5" external = $140-160
FW800 adapter = $20
TB adapter = $130(BHphoto carries it as of yesterday) + TB cable $50

so $180 vs $20 and this is for the portable version. I'm hoping they can release a bundle for the TB cable and adapter for under 100 at some point. The other issue is that TB needs at least a dual drive raid setup to fully utilize any of the bandwidth improvements. For reference OWC's dual FW raid enclosure stands at $75, given the cost of the adapter here it would probably cost at least $150 with no cable.
 
FW800 is still much more affordable and nearly as fast (for HDDs) as ThunderBolt. Until it's not anymore, I hope Apple continues to offer it as an option.
 
Yes I use Firewire almost daily.
If you're into photography it's only one of two options to move lots of photos off my Compact Flash cards (the other being USB 3.0, which Apple currently doesn't have.)

Additionally, there are many external raid arrays that use Firewire. Thunderbolt doesn't have high adoption and it costs a bunch so many people are still using Firewire as their solution. Common examples are arrays made by OWC, Lacie, Promise, & Drobo. Firewire 800 IS a faster solution than USB 2.0, that cannot be denied by anyone. Sure it's slower than Thunderbolt, but most of us cannot afford Thunderbolt peripherals (for now.)

As long as we have people that need support for these, yes I hope that Firewire 800 continues to be around. In fact, the back of my 27" iMac has a lot of extra space. Honestly they could ADD additional Firewire 800 Ports to the back of the iMac along with more USB ports and I would take that as a welcomed addition.
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolt gear is damn expensive and likely to remain so for the forseable future. The port it simply extreme overkill for most tasks.

So as UnknownSouljer says FW800 will still have a place until apple has embraced USB3 and possibly beyond that depending on how much the user values compatibility with their older macs.
 
Daily. It lets me fix older Macs and easily recover newer ones.
 
450, no offence, but you're the same person who said "Lion sucks, I'm sticking with SL" in the other thread. Why would you want to use the latest hardware from Apple if you dislike their latest software?
 
Nothing wrong with FireWire, though it will eventually be phased out in favor of Thunderbolt.

Actually, I only recently began using FireWire at all; I picked up a 2 GB external HDD for use with Time Machine, and hooked it up to the FW800 port on my MBP. Before it had been sitting unused, but now I've freed up a USB port (just in time: I bought a USB DAC/amp.)
 
shurcooL said:
450, no offence, but you're the same person who said "Lion sucks, I'm sticking with SL" in the other thread. Why would you want to use the latest hardware from Apple if you dislike their latest software?
Click to expand...

I'm not 450, but I expect his answer to be: because it's faster.
People run older gen OS's all the time.
Would you also ask someone with a PC whom chooses to run XP/Vista over Windows 7 why they would want to have a faster graphics card, processor, or more RAM?
 
shurcooL said:
450, no offence, but you're the same person who said "Lion sucks, I'm sticking with SL" in the other thread. Why would you want to use the latest hardware from Apple if you dislike their latest software?
Click to expand...

Because I like the greater speed, better connectivity, better GPUs, better screens of newer hardware. I like advances in hardware and software, but I feel that Lion didn't bring anything to the table.

Lion didn't have expose/spaces in the same context as earlier OSes, couldn't play video on my mid-2010 MBP or 2011 Mini, wasn't as stable (Lion KP 'd all the time), no Rosetta support (still don't understand this, especially since computers are more powerful than ever).

Even though I didn't like Lion, I still like Apple hardware due to the aesthetics and the design. The performance of their displays is also stellar. I'd consider the new 2011 iMacs even if I only used Windows 7/8 with them.
 
The Canopus (Green Valley) ADVC110 still remains the best option for capturing analog video to a PC for post-processing. No other product that I've used guarantees A/V sync. Of course, now that I've converted all my old 8mm & VHS tapes I no longer need it, but it was indispensable during that conversion period.

It's not the technology (firewire) that decides its usefulness, it's the application of it.
 
UnknownSouljer and 450: thank you for your well argued constructive responses. I can understand your POV better now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top