That is an interesting view. Is the support for Firewire given a lower
priority because it is from Apple, or maybe because USB devices are so much
more common. Lets face it, most of the devices that support firewire also
have a USB port. If the support for Firewire was there I would bet that only
a small percentage of Windows users would even know it.
Yes, Microsoft is a large organization and there are probably more than
thousand people working on Vista (but not 50,000), but that doesn't mean that
they don't have to make decisons on what is worked on and what isn't. There
were a number of features in the earlier alphas and betas that were removed
because they just couldn't be completed on time so why would they pick
Firewire support (used by a small percentage of users) over any of these
features that would be used by the majority of their user base?
That being said, if you upgraded your machine you might want to check the
driver in use in case it didn't upgrade and is still using the XP driver for
some reason. I also use a firewire external drive, and I am getting
considerably better throughput than you are reporting.
Given the choice, I hope Microsoft spends man hours fixing the numerous
other issues with Vista (like getting more devices to work properly, getting
their network issues resolved, and for Gods sake adding support for the
development tools on the platform) before even looking at Firewire.
"Roof Fiddler" wrote:
> "HDFatBoy2003" <H_D_FatBoy2003@msn.com> wrote in message
> > I've been searching for answers on this question also. Vista does support
> > 1394 but at what level I've not been able to determine. I've read
> > articles that 1394b is not support at this time and won't be until SP1.
> > Okay I'll live with that, but it seems HD wise 1394 is running at S100
> > speeds instead of the standard S400, much like it was implemented in XP.
> That would explain it.
> So I tried using the USB interface on the same drive, and got sustained
> throughput over 21MB/s, compared to the under 9MB/s I got with firewire.
> It would be really interesting to hear what lame excuse MS gives for failure
> to run at S400.
> "Uh, we've got over 50,000 employees here and billions of dollars in assets
> and we've had half a decade to work on Vista, and we got USB running fast
> with no problem, but uh, we don't really have the time, or enough
> programmers, or uh, our programmers are too incompetent to get more than
> token usability out of firewire."
> "Huh? Uh, no, we would never tell our programmers to intentionally cripple
> firewire so consumers will use only USB so manufacturers will produce only
> USB equipment so Apple's firewire will fall by the wayside, why would you
> ever suspect that?"
> If MS wants to wage war and refuse to support firewire, that's fine, but it
> shouldn't try to deceive people at the same time by pretending that it does
> support firewire.