I can't quite figure out what the fascination is with all of these devices only having USB ports. Is it that hard to have Firewire ports as well?In all of my testing the Firewire ports on Macs are faster.

Alas, another device I won't buy...

Why don't they put firewire ports in? Basically, it's cheaper. This way they have to worry about one piece of hardware which can be wired in parallel.

People who use FW for gobs of devices, like myself, usually have devices that have multiple FW ports on them. Unlike USB, FW can daisy chain devices (that is, to plug on device into another with at least of the group plugged into the computer) up to 41 times, I believe. For this reason, you really don't need a HUB to connect it all at once.

That being said, people who use FW usually need to move large amounts of data very quickly. In my instance, I use FW for external HDs, video transfer, an external box for multiple Audio I/O and MIDI connections, iPod connection (yes, I have a 3G that still works with FW) and an iSight connection.

Now, just because you can hook all of these up, doesn't mean you're going to get the same transfer speeds when you're using them simultaneously. My notebook has both a FW800 and FW400 connection, but this doesn't meaen I get a total of 1200 Mbps transfer rates. The bus speed for my firewire ports is only 800 Mpbs, so I can't expect to get full performance out of my devices when they're all hooked up. In fact, some like the audio I/O box will cut out entirely, as if I had unplugged it, when an external drive spins up again to transfer a lot of info after having been in power-saving mode.

People who use USB peripherals usually don't need fast transfer rates, so plugging a large number in is just fine. Since most don't have the hardware to daisy chain into another device, a seperate port is needed for each device. This latter situation is rarely the case for FW users, so there isn't a large enough market to advocated the extra expense for such a product.

I'm all for FW continuance (really pisses me off that my new iPod can't use the old FW cable- the USB slow down is painfully obvious) and I'm looking forward to FW3200. Despite Apple's lack of using it in newer iPods, professionals will continue to use it. While Dell and HP may not include it on their machines (usually) makers like Apple and IBM will (our scores of 6 year old IBMs at work have 4 FW400 ports on them) and others will at least have the crappy standby 4pin firewire for consumers with camcorders.

As people start wanting to transfer more and more info to portables, perhaps will see a resurgance of FW in case design. Somethign tells me that for this to happen, Apple is going to have to seeing even BIGGER gains in marketshare and be the leader in this area.

USB and Firewire ports aside, how does this company pronounce their name? Is it "Mack-sessity", as in "necessity". If so, they have no understanding of English grammar because as spelled it cannot be pronounced that way. The way they have it there are only two ways to say it: "mass-essity" (soft c) or, less likely "mack-ess-ity". Both of which sound like failed attempts at a name that was supposed to sound like something else. I'm not knocking them, I'm just put off by the name.

Oh yeah, nothing like wrapping your mini in a sheet of steel to ruin it's otherwise excellent Airport reception! I wonder if they even thought to test that when they come up with that design?

And to summarize danviento's Dickens-esque novel: because USB requires hubs to connect multiple devices and FW does not. :-)