Thanks for sharing with me your insights.
At 09:23 PM 6/2/2003 -0700, you wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:03:47PM -0700, Rodney Mishima wrote: > >> From my experience, Firewire always works, even in Windows. > > > >It only mostly works in Linux. > > So, this is one of the very few arenas where Win is better
It's one of the areas where Windows has been more thoroughly tested. Firewire on non-macs has a relatively small target audience. Of that audience, the only large group of Linux geeks using it right now are either importing DV to turn into DivX AVI or are iPod users. ;)
What a dilemma. If Linux had better Firewire, I would like its prospects on Mac/PPC. When a Switcher buys into the Mac, they surely will love OS X. But, soon reality sets in; and the question is "Where are all the Apps I need?" Under OS X, the Darwin subsystem supports some Open Source Apps. But, imagine if Linux PPC were to have mature, "ready for prime time" Firewire support. If so, a Switcher could dual boot into Linux PPC and get many desired Apps that are not yet available as native OS X Apps. And, imagine that feeling of accomplishment in the ability to abandon the complete Wintel environment ( BOTH M$ AND Intel/X86 ).
> > Too few firewire users out there, so the > >drivers tend to not get as much testing as USB, IDE, SCSI, etc. > > I am sad to hear that Firewire is given such low priority vs. USB, et. al.
More people using it == better testing. Face it, there just aren't many cheap firewire devices out there right now. The average Linux geek is either cheap, poor, or both (ie, a student..)
Yes, demographically many euglugers are poor students. Optimistically, most will no longer be poor after graduation.
There are a lot of really cheap USB devices out there today, so the USB code gets a pretty thurough testing since every PC since 1996 has had working USB support and you can pick up a $30 device that uses it and probably has Linux support.
Sadly, you are correct here. This certainly does not help to project the most positive image for Linux: good support for cheap USB devices, poor support for high performance Firewire devices.
Firewire is still an option on most systems. The drives available for firewire tend to be hard drives (internal's cheaper), video devices (Linux still lacks decent video editing), and uhh, the iPod? Hardly worth it to most people.
I am not a student; not exactly wealthy either. But, about two years ago; I bought my first Mac, a G4 tower, code name "Sawtooth". Since I also had (still have) a Sony VAIO laptop with iLink ( their Firewire implementation with 4 pin instead of 6 pin); I bought an external CD-RW ( IDE-ATAPI Teac drive in a Firewire enclosure).
If was expensive, even 2 years ago. I think I paid about $250 for the Firewire burner. But, I was able to just plug it into either the Mac or Sony, and it worked.
In this way it's like Bluetooth - very cool tech, but nobody's actually got the hardware to use it.
You may be right. I hope not. I have already invested a lot into Firewire. There are do-it-yourself Firewire enclosure kits available for $80 + that I have used on both Mac and "that other family of OSes". I have 2 HDs of 120 GB ( doorbusters at Fry's) that I put in the external enclosures ( some even support USB 2.0 as well ) and get the advantage of a high performance HD without have to open the computer's case. With a laptop, I get desktop performance at a fraction of the cost of upgrading to a larger internal HD.
> >Modern macs feature USB2. You need to get a quietly distributed thing
> >from Apple to enable the EHCI functionality. It just happens that they
> >work fine as USB1.1 since part of the EHCI spec is OHCI compatibility.
>
> With my limited experience using USB 2.0 ( mostly frustration), I do not
> expect it to compete with Firewire for high performance. The most favorable
> experience I heard was from someone who works for Xerox, says that the USB
> 2.0 print driver works, is faster than 1.1
I have a USB2 scanner. When I get my Firewire/USB2 drive in a couple of days (it will arrive in a couple of days, though it may not get installed until after next Tuesday), I'll move my scanner to it. It'll run faster, and I'll find myself wishing my Zip 250 was also USB2.
I don't completely understand what the Zip 250 is. If it is an internal ATAPI, you could put it in an external Firewire/ USB 2.0 enclosure to get what you desire.
I wonder if some enterprising person out there is likely to sell a cheap replacement for some part of the Zip 250's electronics that will make it run USB2. The 250 is better than the 750 since it can write to the old standby 100 disks and is USB-powered. The 750 is only self-powered in the Firewire version, and then only if you've got a real Firewire port rather than an iLink.
Hint: if your firewire connector is smaller than USB, it's iLink.
Yes, Sony cut corners and uses only 4 pins; and the 2 missing ones supply power (to an iPod, for example).
Rodney
- -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Only l33t on Thursdays
_______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
