[opendtv] Re: The tragedy of FireWire: Collaborative tech torpedoed by corporations
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:45:25 -0400
On Jun 24, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hmmm, if the very vast majority of PC users did just fine without, one
wonders how it could have been "VERY necessary."
The very vast majority of PC users were not in the business of producing video
programming for a living. And PCs were mostly useless for professional video
editing without major upgrades to deal with managing the massive amounts of
data needed to do "broadcast quality" work.
Early desktop video system cost between $40K and $100K - not exactly your
commodity PC market.
As I noted in the previous post, FireWire was used widely in PCs that were
configured for professional video editing.
On the contrary, DVI, followed by HDMI, were much more in line with the more
commonly used, backward compatible interfaces that I'm talking about, which
continue to be improved as needs require.
These interfaces have NEVER been used for professional video editing - they are
useless, since they are encumbered by copy protection layers, and they are not
designed to move multiple streams of data. HDMI is now used as a way to output
a finished video to a display - it is rarely used to connect the multiple
screens used in professional editing systems.
You are clearly out of your league here Bert!
On the other hand, the article did point out how Wintel kept FireWire
from being widely deployed on the dominant PC platform.
The article I read placed much of the blame on Apple, actually. Although for
the most part, the only significant champion FireWire EVER had was Apple.
Much like Thunderbolt.
This is simply NOT TRUE.
Yes the article did point out that Apple had some internal competition that for
a time slowed the deployment of FireWire. But the article also stated that this
changed and the standard was widely deployed and evolved through three
generations, starting in the late 1990's, until newer standards like
Thunderbolt started to emerge in 2011.
From Wikipedia:
Apple first included on-board FireWire in some of its 1999 Macintosh models
(though it had been a build-to-order option on some models since 1997), and
most Apple Macintosh computers manufactured in the years 2000 through 2011
included FireWire ports. However, in February 2011 Apple introduced the first
commercially available computer with Thunderbolt. Apple released its last
computers featuring FireWire late 2012. By 2014 Thunderbolt had become a
standard feature across Apple's entire line of computers effectively becoming
the spiritual successor to FireWire in the Apple ecosystem.
The system was commonly used to connect data storage devices and DV (digital
video) cameras, but was also popular in industrial systems for machine vision
and professional audio systems. Many users preferred it over the more common
USB 2.0 for its then greater effective speed and power distribution
capabilities. Benchmarks show that the sustained data transfer rates are
higher for FireWire than for USB 2.0, but lower than USB 3.0.
While Apple pioneered the use of this standard, the PC industry is
now getting on board.
Looks to me like Thunderbolt is merging with USB, adopting the USB-C
connector.
That's about as far as it goes Bert.
The connector may be the same, but the capabilities are not.
Thunderbolt is an outgrowth of several standards. From Wiki:
Thunderbolt combines PCI Express (PCIe) and DisplayPort (DP) into two serial
signals [4], and additionally provides DC power, all in one cable. Up to six
peripherals may be supported by one connector through various topologies.
While DVI and HDMI may well serve the needs of most commodity PC users, they
cannot get the job done for many professional applications and gaming
configurations with multiple monitors. These systems typically use graphic
cards with Display Port, Mini display port, or Thunderbolt interfaces.
Looks like a variable set of features for USB 3.1. USB 3.0 and 3.1 were
always meant to be updates of USB that would support connecting displays,
growing up from the early days of the USB for only keyboard, mouse, and
printer interface. This recent article sounds more realistic to me. And the
one after that describes USB-C, and its compatibility with USB 3.0 and 3.1,
with passive adapters.
http://techreport.com/news/31959/intel-plans-to-integrate-thunderbolt-into-future-cpus
This article nails it Bert. By 2018 we are likely to see widespread use of
Thunderbolt on premium PCs and Notebooks. Thanks for the link!
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/197145-reversible-usb-type-c-finally-on-its-way-alongside-usb-3-1s-10gbit-performance
This one is a bit outdated, and spends a bunch of time talking about the issues
with multiple new USB standards and connectors hitting the market almost
simultaneously. And there is the other reality: USB-C is a general purpose port
that will be deployed on phones, tablets, desktop PCs and laptops, where high
performance is not a significant criteria. Thunderbolt 3 is a high performance
interconnect that fully supports USB standards, uses the USB-C connector, and
offers both higher performance AND support for protocols used for storage
systems and displays that are not supported with USB.
"Type-C connectors will be shipped in a variety of passive adapters (an
earlier version of this story erroneously asserted that such cables would not
be available, Extremetech regrets the error). The spec provides for passive
adapters with USB 3.0 / 3.1 on one end and USB Type-C on the other."RT
What has this got to do with this discussion?
As I said, you are pout of your league on this subject...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: