Why didn't this catch on? 400MBPS and chaining in 1999 must've

>>58940378
Apple was charging out the ass to license it to anyone, so no one wanted to use it.

Plus, PCs were slow at the time, and couldnt really hit those numbers.

Only high end hardware could, and that's where most firewire shit was used.

>>58940378
Useless for the most part since HDDs barely broke 60MBps, and USB devices didn't need anywhere near that bandwidth.

>>58940519
you know the first USB version (1.1, 1996-2004) only hit 12Mbps/1.5MiB/s, right?
hdd's were slower at the time, but not THAT slow, it was fine for most things though (input devices, printers, earlier webcams, flash drives, card readers, etc)
IEEE1394 was 400Mbps from 1995. not a lot of people had a need for such speed at the time, very few things could use that kind of speed (hdds, DV cameras)

>>58940689
You know that USB2 480mbps was 2000 right?

And hard drives were even slower than 60mbps, stop making shit up.

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/9907/990719ataroundup1999.html

>>58940807
>You know that USB2 480mbps was 2000 right?
huh, maybe i was only thinking about windows, XP got usb2 support in 2004

also, i was referring to hdd's not be as slow as 12mbps (USB1.1), not that they were faster than 60MB/s

>>58941152
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/dn423379%28v=vs.85%29.aspx#enhdriver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Service_Pack_1

That's the service pack, the individual patch that added it came long before.

>>58941181
i only bothered to install service packs at the time
i should have double checked the facts before posting, my mistake

>>58940378

Useless. Half the machines I tried to use it on it wouldn't work. Drivers were generally too borked to expect reliability. When you needed it to work, especially for its rated speeds, that's when you could bet good money that there would be mysterious reasons why nothing would work.

USB? Plug it in and it works. Always. I have no memory, ever, of any USB connection failing.

Firewire? I can't recall it ever working when I needed it to work. Just a useless, dead port that almost nothing connected to (physically) and, when there was a hardware interface between critical tech, most of the time the attached device would be undetectable and no way to force the detection.

When they released the firewire 800 spec, the only thing left to do was laugh and ignore it.

In the entire history of connective specifications, firewire pretty much hods the Gold Medal for being the most unreliable, frustrating and FAIL-prone ever released into public consumption. All hype, near zero connectivity.

>>58941245
>In the entire history of connective specifications, firewire pretty much hods the Gold Medal for being the most unreliable, frustrating and FAIL-prone ever released into public consumption. All hype, near zero connectivity.
worked on my machines

Seriously, firewire, even 400 was so much faster than USB it's not even funny.
Only now with USB3 we finally have faster connections to external HDDs than I had with FW400 in fucking 2005 on a shitty ibook or AthlonXP machine.
Also, try to move a few GB over USB and say goodby to doing anything else on that machine, because USB eats up all of your CPU cycles.
With firewire?
Well, sure, you noticed your HDD being busy, but your CPU wasn't bothered.

>USB
>Universal
>Slow
>Bus

firefwire was on of the few things where apple (lol, who's sony…) actually innovated (rare, but it did happen), but fucked up with stupid decisions.
Now its normally the other way round.

>>58942474
> apple actually innovated (rare, but it did happen), but fucked up with stupid decisions

that's apple 1987 - 2007 for you

>>58942524
Nah, even back then, it was mostly good marketing + good implementation of other folks work plus the fact that they delivered hardware and software, perfectly matching each other.
Which all in all, made them the best choice to get if you wanted >it just werks and could pay for that privilige.
Nowadays however…

>>58940807
>You know that USB2 480mbps was 2000 right?
On paper. In reality it was more like 280mbps.

>>58940378
Plug and play port with DMA is a security disaster.

>>58941245
It worked fine in OSX and Linux. Perhaps being a retarded windows user was your problem.

>>58942834
This.
Look up winlockpwn.