PDA

View Full Version : connected 2 pc (XP0 with a g4 (osx) by a firewire hub



tortoro
07-21-2003, 01:47 AM
Hello all,

I have just setup a lan between my two pc under xp through a firewire hub, and now I want to connected a g4 under osx (last build).

I don't know how to do that, in the lan property f the mac I can not see the firewire but only the gigabyte ethernet and rtc modem.

Can you help me please:confused:

thank's for advance

Zarathustra
07-21-2003, 08:42 AM
I've been curious about connecting PCs and Macs for rendering. I'm curious, what are the pros and cons of a Firewire connection versus Ethernet?

tortoro
07-21-2003, 11:21 AM
pors:1-the hub are cheaper 79 euros
2-you can plug or unplug without turning off your computer
3-apprently you can plug a dvdr, a camcorder or a deck and share it with the others computer

con:1-480mb/s against 1000mb/s for the gigabyte ethernet
2-apparently it is not possible to use a firewire card for a network in a mac.

Any info on the lasrt point are welcome

js33
07-21-2003, 12:00 PM
So you can use the Apple invented technology of firewire to network PCs but it DOESN"T WORK on the Mac?

That's interesting.

Cheers,
JS

eblu
07-21-2003, 12:12 PM
http://developer.apple.com/firewire/IP_over_FireWire.html

do it up

Zarathustra
07-21-2003, 12:23 PM
Ok, so how about some how-tos for both?

eblu
07-21-2003, 12:53 PM
actually it becomes just another ip choice in the network pane of System prefs.
(Ethernet, modem, Firewire)

and to hook up a network:
you can build it almost any way you want. Firewire can work like ethernet with hubs and in a radial top down pattern, but you can also daisy chain it, which btw, takes less cable.

best part? hot plugging.

Zarathustra
07-21-2003, 12:57 PM
No 3rd party software to make the Mac and PC see each other?

eblu
07-21-2003, 02:37 PM
zar... the mac can already see smb, nfs, appleshare ip, rendezvous, etc... the firewire thing simply enables current IP technology across Firewire.
its no different from working across ethernet.

so, as long as the PC can do the same, then it will work.

Beamtracer
07-21-2003, 03:10 PM
I haven't tested it, but I've been told that two Macs can see eachother's hard drives via normal Firewire (no IP).

IP over Firewire is a different thing. I didn't know that Windows supported it.

Apple's move last year to add IP over Firewire is probably a recognition of the fact that all device communication will eventually be done with IP (internet protocol). It's the way the world is headed.




Originally posted by js33
So you can use the Apple invented technology of firewire to network PCs but it DOESN"T WORK on the Mac?

That's interesting.

Cheers,
JS Thanks for this valuable contribution to the Mac forum, JS.

tortoro
07-21-2003, 03:15 PM
"Using the existing Network Preferences Pane, users can add FireWire as their IP network node to connect and communicate between two machines. "

I want to communicate between 3 computer not two.
Windows can do this.

I saw that I can connect two mac by firewire (for sharing a hard disk) but it does not work with a pc.

When you said you can choose between ethernet, modem, and firewire I can oly choose with ethernet and modem.:(

I will be really interrested if you have a link with a patch or something.

ps:thank's for the precedent link.

eblu
07-21-2003, 08:29 PM
these quotes:

"Now the IP over FireWire Preview Release adds support for using the Internet Protocol - commonly known as TCP/IP - over FireWire. With this software installed, Macintosh computers and other devices can use existing IP protocols and services over FireWire, including AFP, HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc. In all cases, Rendezvous can be used if desired for configuration, name resolution, and discovery. "

"The preview release adds a new Kernel Extension that hooks into the existing network services architecture. Using the existing Network Preferences Pane, users can add FireWire as their IP network node to connect and communicate between two machines. "

mean that firewire over IP works with the exact same IP software that already works across the ethernet hardware. BUT... for it to work, you must download and install it. Firewire over IP can be downloaded at the ADC Member site, to do this you must be a member of Apple's developer community. sounds a little scary right? Well the good news is that you dont have to pay anything to become a member, its free.
the above link has links for anyone who wants to become a member and download firewire over IP.

Beamtracer
07-22-2003, 06:07 AM
That's interesting to know, that you must download it to get it.

Why aren't more people rushing to use IP over Firewire? Firewire800 gives about the same practical speeds as GigaEthernet but is vastly cheaper and more versatile.

Windows users should adopt it too, for the same reasons.

tortoro
07-22-2003, 07:15 AM
thank you for all your info eblu.

Beam, for the firewire 800 I havn't see any hub for sale yet, this is probably the first reason, and the other one is that in firewire 400 you could only have a 5 meter cable so with the hub you have 10 meters max of cable.
If i'm going this way it's only because our computer are close enough of each others.

eblu
07-22-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
That's interesting to know, that you must download it to get it.

Why aren't more people rushing to use IP over Firewire? Firewire800 gives about the same practical speeds as GigaEthernet but is vastly cheaper and more versatile.

Windows users should adopt it too, for the same reasons.

my guess: its a technology in its infancy. As noted on the apple site, the fireWire over IP software is Pre Release, which is why its not installed by default, and you can only get it from the Developers site.

And, even though Firewire is an ideal replacement for Many Many kinds of connections technologies, it has gotten a very severe cold shoulder because its an "apple" technology. good example is my g4 500, which has an interior firewire connector for native firewire harddrives. A device that doesn't exist. The current "firewire harddrives" are ata with a Bridge chip; a convertor. native firewire Harddrives would flat out be better than current technology, but they would also put quite a few companies out of business. And in case you were wondering, going out of business is bad for business ;)

I like firewire, its very slick, and has an almost unlimited potential market. With it we can make devices that we use today, substantially easier to setup and use. For instance: imagine daisy chaining your 6.1 audio setup, this means only one cable from the receiver, gets all of the information to the speakers, the TV, and any other device in the chain.
But... firewire is still incredibly young, and it competes directly with older, more accepted Standards. Standards that make money.

tortoro:
i was going to ask who emu was... guess its me :) i'd rather be the walrus

Beamtracer
07-22-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by eblu
firewire is still incredibly young, and it competes directly with older, more accepted Standards I think Firewire's biggest competitor is Intel's USB2, a vastly inferior technology that somehow became popular, and for some reason the public is willing to adopt it.
Originally posted by eblu
imagine daisy chaining your 6.1 audio setup, this means only one cable from the receiver, gets all of the information to the speakers, the TV, and any other device in the chain.
I think that audio and video devices will one day all be linked using IP. Even home stereos. Firewire IP would be well positioned to capitalize on this.

eblu
07-22-2003, 09:11 AM
i read about a design that replaced all the connectors in the back of your receiver, with firewire. its easy to hook up because everything hooks up to the same connector, you can daisy chain it, and you don't need to run more than one cable form the device. The problem is, new speakers have to be designed (much more expensive), the profit margins will get screwed for such a system (the receiver should become inexpensive), and people already spend lots of money on other technologies. So at this point Firewire isn't "better enough" to replace aging tech for the sonys of the world. So apple's assumed deal to get firewire into PCs for USB in Macs was a very good one.

usb2 is an inferior tech, but its just one of many, and it just cant compete with firewire in design, but marketing is a different story. usbWhatever is only reasonable at the desktop level, but firewire is great for just about any data transfer. some good examples : home theatre cabling, on the motherboard, as a replacement for scsi, as a replacement for ATA, serial ATA, etc..., all of the functions that USB handles, networking.

firewire is seriously much more flexible than its current market indicates, and even though i doubt we'll see firewire become the Only connector, it would be a welcome change.

LW_Will
07-22-2003, 10:01 AM
Isn't Firewire Superior to Giga-Ethernet because the pathway for FW is wider? You can take video feeds off of other computers and use them in realtime, right?

Second, it is Ethernet. The TOPOLOGY is FW, running Ethernet as the protocol... ;-)

Now... if you use the FW2 connectors, aren't they VERY close to the speeds if Giga-Ethernet?

Beamtracer: I think the reason that the inferior standard of USB 2 is accepted by so many people is that Intel just gave it away to so many MB manufacture. Finally, it is available on the G5s, so I guess apple has seen the light.

(and, because the pins are EXACTLY the same, there should be a software upgrade to get all our USB 1 slots to USB 2!)

Boy... I want to start messing about with FW as a network standard!


Will

js33
07-22-2003, 10:44 AM
If firewire is limited to a 5 meter cable it won't replace ethernet which can easily use 100 ft or more. Also firewire cables are more expensive than ethernet cables. I believe FW800 can use longer cables but not sure what length. As long as the FW cables cost more and have shorter lengths it won't replace ethernet.
Of course FW is good for video and the iPod. :D

Cheers,
JS

Zarathustra
07-22-2003, 10:48 AM
This is all charming talk about Firewire, but seeing as how I have an Ethernet network currently, I'm curious about how to network PC and Mac in case I ever buy a pc or 2 to have as rendernodes.

Thanks

mlinde
07-22-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
This is all charming talk about Firewire, but seeing as how I have an Ethernet network currently, I'm curious about how to network PC and Mac in case I ever buy a pc or 2 to have as rendernodes.

Thanks

Buy a copy of Thursby's Dave. It enables greater functionality than built-in SMB access. Install it on the Mac that will be your host, and it will be able to communicate effectively and efficiently with the PCs. Don't forget to make sure all of your ethernet devices pass through a switch instead of a hub -- better throughput. Also be prepared for the cost of giga-ethernet (if you want it), because 10/100 is cheap, and giga isn't.

Zarathustra
07-22-2003, 11:42 AM
Thank you, mlinde.

eblu
07-23-2003, 07:31 AM
if all you have is 2 machines, no network or other concerns here are two words that might make your day: CROSSOVER CABLE.

see:
http://www.makeitsimple.com/how-to/dyi_crossover.htm

cat 5 cable connectors can be wired so that it doesnt need a hub in order to connect two computers directly to each other. Its of limited use, but it is very cost effective.

neat little blurb i found on the firewire trade associations web site:
"How does 1394 compare to Ethernet?____ (top)
1394 multiplexes (combines) a variety of different types of digital signals, including video, audio, MIDI and device control commands, on two twisted-pair conductors (similar to that of 10base-T Ethernet). This ability to easily multiplex or combine different signal types distinguishes 1394 from other systems which transmit only a single signal type.

Ethernet, for example, is typically used in data networks and requires special protocols (presently implemented only in proprietary multimedia networking systems) to transmit real-time, high-quality audio and video.

In comparison, 1394 is much more flexible in its accommodation of different data types and topologies than Ethernet and other alternative networking systems. 1394 uses a "fairness" arbitration approach to assure that all devices that have information to transmit get a chance to use the bus. 1394 protocols also include device-specific commands to start and stop camcorders, VCRs and other tasks. Standard Ethernet does not provide these important features."


and this one:
"What about the 4.5-meter cable length limitation?____ (top)
1394 cables are limited to 4.5 meters between devices before signal distortion begins to occur. The use of 1394 to implement home networks will require cable hops likely to exceed 10 meters. Restricting the speed of the bus to S200 enables an increase in the distance between nodes to about 14 meters (approximately 45 feet). 1394 transceivers have been announced that are powered by in-wall wiring and extend the distance between active nodes to at least 70 meters using plastic optical fiber (POF). Keep in mind that these distances are "between each device". Multiple devices can be connected so the overall length of the 1394 "network" can be very significant."

btw: with firewire 800 the max cable distance is in KILOMETERS.


3rd party platform independent software for firewire network support :
http://www.unibrain.com/home/

davemj
07-23-2003, 10:16 AM
I don't know I am sure I read a SONY catalogue a couple of years ago talking about a vision using i-Link between TV/Video/Receiver etc which is what SONY called Firewire

David

eblu
07-23-2003, 11:10 AM
firewire is currently used as a High quality Sound connection in prosumer-high end audio devices. check out the 96 khz (might have the wrong hz scale there) DVD audio players.

http://www.digitalaudioguide.com/faq/dvd-audio/faq_3.htm#What%20is%20audio%20system%20is%20requir ed%20for%20DVD-Audio?

this is a good step in the right direction, but it can be so much more. Firewire is more efficient than any "monster" cable, so it can turn your wad of 6 speaker cables into a single strand, and still move more data, further. The "gotcha" is in the speakers. The speakers would have to have some hardware in them in order to decode the audio. this would make speakers more expensive, but since that hardware is in the speakers, then it should also take some of the burden from the receiver, and possibly lessen its importance and cost in the scheme of things.