Firewire vs USB 2.0, and another question [Archive]

nickgb3

11-30-2005, 12:31 PM

So I want to buy an external hard-drive to help out my iBook's meager storage capacity, and I feel pretty comfortable with the Lacie (Porsche design) models available at my campus computer store. My question is whether, considering that I will presumably keep the drive even after upgrading my laptop, Firewire or USB 2.0 is a better choice. Will Firewire continue to be offered as a connectivity standard on future Mac laptops?

The benefit to Firewire right now, as I understand it, is that you can boot from a Firewire drive using OS X's Target Mode. I like the idea of being able to do this, and you can't do it with USB 2.0, right?

I'm also asking, I guess, for opinions on the pros and cons of Firewire and USB 2.0 in general - USB is faster, right? But to what extent does the lack of bootability infringe on its speed advantage, all things considered.

Also, something I've never gotten a firm answer on. Will either Firewire or USB bottleneck the speed of the external drive? I want to be able to run both movies and games off the Lacie drive (8 meg cache, 7200 rpm), but will my connectivity choice make a difference to the performance of the applications? Is there another factor, something in my 1Ghz iBook G4, for example, that will limit performance? Or will performance be better considering the faster spin speed of the external drive relative to that of the iBook?

Sorry for the length - thanks for your help!!

Nick

rickag

11-30-2005, 01:13 PM

I bought a LaCie external drive with USB 2, Firewire and Firewire 800, just to be covered in all cases. My desktop has a Firewire 400 PCI card added and my laptop has both Firewire 400 and 800.

As I understand it, in many cases Firewire 400 can be almost as fast as USB 2.0. I haven't used target disc mode, yet, but do plan on making my external drive bootable sometime in the future(nice feature).

I use the external drive to store my home movies for editing in Final Cut Express and am extremely happy. Initially I did editing on movies on my laptop drive and really can't tell if it is smoother or faster with the external drive which is a 7200 rpm drive with 16 Mb buffer, but have to think that with either Firewire 400 or 800 it would be as fast or faster.

Can't be of much more help. Maybe one of the more knowledgeable posters here can help?

Lupa

11-30-2005, 01:26 PM

First off,

Firewire is faster than USB2 in real life situations.

The theoretical max speeds 400 mb/s for firewire and 480 mb/s for usb (I think), do not work out in real life. This is mostly due to the different archictecture of firewire which I don't fully understand, sorry.

In my experience, I've measured firewire is about 4x faster for large file transfers (5-10 GB), but I'm not sure if this is very common. I've also heard there is much less difference in smaller read/write operations.

I have a firewire porsche, they're very nice. However, I don't know about the bottleneck, it's something I've wondered myself but have never really tested.

[edyt: spelling]

speed_the_collapse

11-30-2005, 01:35 PM

Target Disk mode, as far as I know, is a method of turning your computer into a FireWire disk to be connected to another computer. It's great when you need a fast method of transferring files to another computer without an external drive.

nickgb3

11-30-2005, 07:04 PM

Thanks for the help - I'm definitely leaning towards the Firewire. I guess my only remaining question is whether Firewire is going to become obselete any time soon - thoughts?

speed_the_collapse

11-30-2005, 07:19 PM

Well, I don't think it's going to be completely obsolete any time soon. USB 2.0 definitely has more of a presence, but I'm pretty sure FireWire isn't leaving any Mac soon. It's kinda sad though how the iPod now doesn't support FireWire transfers. Kinda screws me over when it comes to getting that brand new iPod, cause I have an iBook from 2002 and it only has USB 1.1. That'd be so slooooooooooow every time I hook it up. But nope, I'm pretty sure FireWire isn't leaving anytime soon.

pyriX

12-01-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by nickgb3
Thanks for the help - I'm definitely leaning towards the Firewire. I guess my only remaining question is whether Firewire is going to become obselete any time soon - thoughts?

As long as Apple is seen as the company for video editing and creativity, firewire, or at least a way of adding firewire is not going away from the .Mac platform. Too many HD camera's use it.

Windows PC's are just starting to come with firewire too now, so if anything, it is growing in popularity.

I'd definitly go with firewire.

The above poster was right, USB 2.0 is rated at 480mb/s, and firewire at 400mb/s. However, firewire performs much closer to its theoretical maximum than USB 2.0

Alias789

12-01-2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by nickgb3
So I want to buy an external hard-drive to help out my iBook's meager storage capacity, and I feel pretty comfortable with the Lacie (Porsche design) models available at my campus computer store. My question is whether, considering that I will presumably keep the drive even after upgrading my laptop, Firewire or USB 2.0 is a better choice. Will Firewire continue to be offered as a connectivity standard on future Mac laptops?

The benefit to Firewire right now, as I understand it, is that you can boot from a Firewire drive using OS X's Target Mode. I like the idea of being able to do this, and you can't do it with USB 2.0, right?

I'm also asking, I guess, for opinions on the pros and cons of Firewire and USB 2.0 in general - USB is faster, right? But to what extent does the lack of bootability infringe on its speed advantage, all things considered.

Also, something I've never gotten a firm answer on. Will either Firewire or USB bottleneck the speed of the external drive? I want to be able to run both movies and games off the Lacie drive (8 meg cache, 7200 rpm), but will my connectivity choice make a difference to the performance of the applications? Is there another factor, something in my 1Ghz iBook G4, for example, that will limit performance? Or will performance be better considering the faster spin speed of the external drive relative to that of the iBook?

Sorry for the length - thanks for your help!!

Nick

Well here (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html) is some data about implementation. I suggest you get a drive with as many connection options as you can afford at least USB 2 and FW400. I was thinking about one of these. (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/1394/USB/EliteAL/)

CharlesS

12-01-2005, 03:44 AM

On current Macs, it's possible to boot from a FireWire drive but not from a USB 2.0 one.

Some people have said (disclaimer: this is going on hearsay - I have no first-hand information) that the Intel developer machines boot from USB 2.0 and not FireWire.

FireWire is faster, more efficient, and more reliable than USB 2.0. However, its usage is not as widespread. At the present time, it seems inconceivable for Apple to stop offering it, but then no one foresaw the iPod dropping FireWire either.

I agree with the previous poster - get an enclosure that supports both USB 2.0 and FireWire. Then, you can't go wrong no matter what happens (well, that is until external Serial ATA comes out and clobbers both USB 2.0 and FireWire!).

rickag

12-01-2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by nickgb3
Thanks for the help - I'm definitely leaning towards the Firewire. I guess my only remaining question is whether Firewire is going to become obselete any time soon - thoughts?

I doubt Firewire will become obsolete any time soon.

Virtually every camcorder includes IEEE 1394(aka Firewire) connectivity and there are millions of camcorders with IEEE 1394 already bought and being used by consumers and professionals.

In fact, more digital cameras are appearing that include IEEE 1394 connectivity and projections(aka rumors) are that more digital camera companies are considering adding it.

Having said that, I still would recommend buying an external hard drive that has both USB 2 and Firewire connectivity. Not only a hedge for future use, but if you, for whatever reason, need to connect multiple computer/devices to your external hard drive you may appreciate the extra connections on the hard drive.

marzetta7

12-01-2005, 09:58 AM

The above poster was right, USB 2.0 is rated at 480mb/s, and firewire at 400mb/s. However, firewire performs much closer to its theoretical maximum than USB 2.0

True for FireWire 400 when compared to USB 2.0. However, FireWire 800 operates of course at 800 mb/s which blows USB 2.0 out of the water. Just wanted to add some clarification.

Mr. Me

12-01-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by marzetta7
The above poster was right, USB 2.0 is rated at 480mb/s, and firewire at 400mb/s. However, firewire performs much closer to its theoretical maximum than USB 2.0

True for FireWire 400 when compared to USB 2.0. However, FireWire 800 operates of course at 800 mb/s which blows USB 2.0 out of the water. Just wanted to add some clarification. Hopefully, you actually clicked on Alias789's link (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html) above. It clearly and convincingly shows the performance that you can expect from USB 2.0, FireWire 400, and FireWire 800.

marzetta7

12-01-2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Me
Hopefully, you actually clicked on Alias789's link (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html) above. It clearly and convincingly shows the performance that you can expect from USB 2.0, FireWire 400, and FireWire 800.

Indeed, I did. However, hopefully you actually don't mind that I made that statement when all the previous posts, not links within post mind you, kept comparing USB 2.0 to FireWire 400. I felt a more accurate comparison, or clarification, rather was needed.

Speaking of links, here's a good one with several benchmark tests comparing FireWire 800, FireWire400, and USB 2.0. They even get into using FireWire as a network medium. Just another reason I don't think FireWire is going by the wayside anytime soon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040402/

Mr. Me

12-01-2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by marzetta7
Indeed, I did. However, hopefully you actually don't mind that I made that statement when all the previous posts, not links within post mind you, kept comparing USB 2.0 to FireWire 400. I felt a more accurate comparison, or clarification, rather was needed.

Speaking of links, here's a good one with several benchmark tests comparing FireWire 800, FireWire400, and USB 2.0. They even get into using FireWire as a network medium. Just another reason I don't think FireWire is going by the wayside anytime soon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040402/ Make no mistake, I did not imply by my previous post that I disagreed with you. However, I don't like arguing possibilities and potentials when I have real numbers. Both the Tom's Hardware link and the Barefeats link, more dramatically, show that virtually every implementation of FireWire smacks USB 2.0. The arguments supporting the performance competiveness of USB 2.0 is not based on evidence, they are based on pipe dreams. And let me support rickag and others concerning the use of FireWire in consumer electronics. FireWire is important to digicams, but it is even more important to HDTV. IIRC, FireWire is a mandatory feature of HD cable set top boxes. The installed base of HDTV equipment is growing rapidly. With it, grows the FireWire installed base.

Powerdoc

12-01-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by marzetta7
The above poster was right, USB 2.0 is rated at 480mb/s, and firewire at 400mb/s. However, firewire performs much closer to its theoretical maximum than USB 2.0

True for FireWire 400 when compared to USB 2.0. However, FireWire 800 operates of course at 800 mb/s which blows USB 2.0 out of the water. Just wanted to add some clarification.

Unfortunately, if firewire 800 shine on Powerbook, it's rather disapointing on the powermac G5, dual core included. With this later computers there is not much difference between FW 400 and FW 800.

smalM

12-01-2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by marzetta7
Speaking of links, here's a good one with several benchmark tests comparing FireWire 800, FireWire400, and USB 2.0.

The test sites show a sort of "best case" for USB as there is normaly only one EHCI controller implemented which all USB2 connections have to share.

Just another reason I don't think FireWire is going by the wayside anytime soon.

Intel commited to build FW800 into their future chip sets only a week or two before Apple announced the CPU switch. Coincidentally :D

speed_the_collapse

12-01-2005, 09:08 PM

Well, let's just hope the next gen of iPods have FireWire 800, eh?
At least maybe just a separate buy, but I really don't like the idea of using USB.

pyriX

12-02-2005, 01:54 AM

SUmmary and End of argument: BOTH Firewire 400/800 are faster than than USB 2.0, REGARDLESS of their theoretical maximums.

The guy just wants to know what drive he should get. I believe that question was answered a while ago. As for why, there are now multiple links to explain it.

theapplegenius

12-02-2005, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS
Some people have said (disclaimer: this is going on hearsay - I have no first-hand information) that the Intel developer machines boot from USB 2.0 and not FireWire.

That makes perfect sence because the Dev kits are using standard x86 BIOS, which only boot off of USB. If Apple uses that new EFI or whatever, they'll probably make it boot USB and FireWire. I can only hope.

webmail

12-02-2005, 01:28 PM

you can boot from usb2 for years now.. where have you been?

Originally posted by CharlesS
On current Macs, it's possible to boot from a FireWire drive but not from a USB 2.0 one.

Some people have said (disclaimer: this is going on hearsay - I have no first-hand information) that the Intel developer machines boot from USB 2.0 and not FireWire.

FireWire is faster, more efficient, and more reliable than USB 2.0. However, its usage is not as widespread. At the present time, it seems inconceivable for Apple to stop offering it, but then no one foresaw the iPod dropping FireWire either.

I agree with the previous poster - get an enclosure that supports both USB 2.0 and FireWire. Then, you can't go wrong no matter what happens (well, that is until external Serial ATA comes out and clobbers both USB 2.0 and FireWire!).

webmail

12-02-2005, 01:31 PM

Sorry, but if you're drive supports both usb2 and firewire, there will be no difference in speed. NONE.

1. your hard drive inside the case can't even transfer data at 1/100 the speeds that usb2 and firewire offer.

2. In independing testing (search google usb2 vs. firewire) usb2 has come out on top, as lower power consumtion and MORE stable with bigger chunks of data. Doesn't it say something to you when the CREATOR of firewire drops support for it's own protocal in favor of USB2? THINK ABOUT IT.

Originally posted by pyriX
SUmmary and End of argument: BOTH Firewire 400/800 are faster than than USB 2.0, REGARDLESS of their theoretical maximums.

The guy just wants to know what drive he should get. I believe that question was answered a while ago. As for why, there are now multiple links to explain it.

dfiler

12-02-2005, 01:44 PM

Interesting, USB vs firewire discussions always seem a bit too passionate to me. It's as if we were talking about political or religious extremism. ;)

One thing to look at is what platforms you plan to use the drive with. While FW is theoretically the supperior architecture, on the WinTel side of things a whole bunch of money has been sunk into USB. USB on windows quite frequently out performs FW. On the Mac it is a different story. Apple's implementation in both hardware and software favors FW.

Don't believe the hype about either one always being the better choice or even being obviously supperior. Both are healthy and competative technologies. A specific implementation of either standard can make all the difference. All USB2 bridges, controllers, and drivers are not created equal.

hmurchison

12-02-2005, 02:30 PM

Firewire's better. Nuff said.

smalM

12-02-2005, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by webmail
Sorry, but if you're drive supports both usb2 and firewire, there will be no difference in speed. NONE.

1. your hard drive inside the case can't even transfer data at 1/100 the speeds that usb2 and firewire offer.

2. In independing testing (search google usb2 vs. firewire) usb2 has come out on top, as lower power consumtion and MORE stable with bigger chunks of data. Doesn't it say something to you when the CREATOR of firewire drops support for it's own protocal in favor of USB2? THINK ABOUT IT.

What a nonsense :no:

Chucker

12-02-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by webmail
Sorry, but if you're drive supports both usb2 and firewire, there will be no difference in speed. NONE.

1. your hard drive inside the case can't even transfer data at 1/100 the speeds that usb2 and firewire offer.

Interesting.

Except it's totally wrong.

USB 2.0 High Speed has a theoretical 480 MBit/s; FireWire 400 and 800 have theoretical 400 or 800 MBit/s, respectively. Because FireWire is entirely self-controlled and thus doesn't have nearly as much latency and management issues as USB, it is in practice faster, even in its 400 MBit/s version. Sometimes the difference is negligible; sometimes it is huge.

This Barefeats test (http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html), for example, shows that FireWire 400 is in fact roughly twice as fast as USB 2.0 High Speed, and FireWire 800 is thrice as fast.

Now, 8 MBit/s are 1 MByte/s, and because of latency and everything, you can usually substract 10-30% off the theoretical speed to get the real speed. Because of that, you get 50 (FW400), 60 (USB2) or 100 (FW800) theoretical MByte/s, but in practice, both FW400 and USB2 hover at around 40 MByte/s max. FW800 comes out to 70-80 MByte/s, if you're lucky.

What do modern hard drives offer? Well, recent 3.5 inch drives are in the 700-900 MBit/s range, in theory. In practice, you won't really get to that speed much.

That is a far cry from the "1/100 speed" you claim, however.

In independing testing (search google usb2 vs. firewire) usb2 has come out on top

That's interesting too. And again, it's wrong. Almost all tests I've seen show USB2 and FireWire400 either close to each other, or with FW on top. I have never seen USB2 on top. And certainly never significantly either.

, as lower power consumtion

Lower power consumption? Well of course! Because with USB, most of the processing is actually done by the CPU of your computer! So the power consumption in the end isn't different, if not even worse, since your CPU isn't exactly optimized to do such a job.

and MORE stable with bigger chunks of data

The opposite is the case. FireWire is very, very stable. USB is not.

Doesn't it say something to you when the CREATOR of firewire drops support for it's own protocal in favor of USB2? THINK ABOUT IT.

Apple was involved in creation, yes. However, they have not "dropped support" for their "protocal[sic]". They have dropped support on the iPod, yes. The reason for that is fairly simple and you have, sort of, cited it yourself: the hard drive in the iPod (or the flash memory in the iPod nano) are so slow in writing that FireWire doesn't provide any advantage whatsoever. The only advantage it could provide is letting the iPods boot, but because of the iPod's internals' design, you shouldn't be doing that anyway.

webmail

12-02-2005, 05:21 PM

Oh yeah? I challege you to prove me wrong.

1. Find a drive, with a plater that uses ATA, SATA, or SCSI that copies more than 480mbs per second. I double dare you.....

2. Firewire on the mac is often plagued by bugs. Do I use firewire? Yes. I often compare firewire to a ferrari, fast, cool, and plagued with annoying little bugs. Every OS update released by apple in the last 5 years, the updated contains firewire "fixes"

3. prove me wrong.

For the record tom's hardware showed LESS than a 1 second difference in performance between the two technologies....

Originally posted by smalM
What a nonsense :no:

Chucker

12-02-2005, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by webmail
1. Find a drive, with a plater that uses ATA, SATA, or SCSI that copies more than 480mbs per second. I double dare you.....

First of all, you were talking about "1/100". SO it would only have to be faster than 4.8 MBit/s to prove you wrong.

Second, I'll just go ahead.

Here's one from Hitachi that has 817 MBit/s (http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/7k500/7k500.htm).

2. Firewire on the mac is often plagued by bugs.

Nice generalization there. Too bad I've been booting off FireWire non-stop for months on this machine, without problems.

Every OS update released by apple in the last 5 years, the updated contains firewire "fixes"

Every 20th update, maybe.

smalM

12-02-2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by webmail
Oh yeah? I challege you to prove me wrong.

1. Find a drive, with a plater that uses ATA, SATA, or SCSI that copies more than 480mbs per second. I double dare you.....

webmail first of all that's 480Mb/s!
Mb/s = Megabit per second
MB/s = Megabyte per second
480Mb/s = 60 MB/s.
Just the max transfer rate of my 200GB Samsung ATA HD running in an external FW800 case.

Lupa

12-02-2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by smalM
webmail first of all that's 480Mb/s!
Mb/s = Megabit per second
MB/s = Megabyte per second
480Mb/s = 60 MB/s.
Just the max transfer rate of my 200GB Samsung ATA HD running in an external FW800 case.

Isn't it 6 bits to a byte, so 480Mb/s = 80 MB/s? [EDIT: apprently not :) ]

Webmail: Firewire was most likely abandoned in the iPod for reasons of either cost or size, or possibly both. The only reason Apple did not instead abandon USB is because USB is far more common in the Windows world. Otherwise, it is still very much supported by Apple (bug fixes should be evidence of that, however prolific they might be).

How would you like to prove your other assertions, maybe you could try some type of support such as links?

Chucker

12-02-2005, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Lupa
Isn't it 6 bits to a byte, so 480Mb/s = 80 MB/s?

No, it's 8. ;)

Lupa

12-02-2005, 10:43 PM

Well, fancy that. :)

dfiler

12-03-2005, 09:32 AM

Buaaa haaa haaa *sniff* lol

If it makes you feel any better... it hasn't always been 8 bits per byte. There was a time when the term wasn't standardized yet. But even then, I don't recall any systems based upon 6 bit bytes.

Lupa

12-03-2005, 08:08 PM

Honestly, I can't say why I thought that, shows what I know. I even took a programming class (really basic C++ stuff) a while back that went over this kind of thing along with hexadecimal etc at the beginning... And yes, I am happy to know that it hasn't always been 8 bits standard. Am I allowed to blame this slip up on dyslexia, perhaps? ;)

farve

12-03-2005, 08:14 PM

Firewire is better because the standard firewire cable is thicker than the USB cable and can therefor transfer more MB/S.:)

theapplegenius

12-03-2005, 08:29 PM

you're joking, right?

mattyj

12-03-2005, 08:53 PM

I've got an external drive with USB2, FW400 and 800, I can say without doubt USB is thrashed on all counts. USB also bogs down the system a lot more. As far as I understand it, doesn't firewire have a processor that aids in the data transfer, whilst USB relies completely on the CPU?

Mr. Me

12-03-2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by mattyj
I've got an external drive with USB2, FW400 and 800, I can say without doubt USB is thrashed on all counts. USB also bogs down the system a lot more. As far as I understand it, doesn't firewire have a processor that aids in the data transfer, whilst USB relies completely on the CPU? This is correct. Every bit that is transferred via USB must pass through the CPU. FireWire devices contain their own intelligence and therefore can function without accessing your CPU. For example, you can connect your FireWire-enabled camcorder to your FireWire-enabled HD set-top box to display your wedding video without ever turning on your computer.

farve

12-04-2005, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by theapplegenius
you're joking, right?

Yes. But I do like the feel of the firewire cable.

NOFEER

12-04-2005, 06:49 AM

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION--
get a hd for backup that supports at least usb and fw 400 the difference in price isn't much and that's what i did. you lead through example ha ha.
i just bought an iomega 250 usb/fw. maccentral has a review, but i went to newegg and epinion for real world experience and ease of use. the reality is living with this drive for some time and give yourself flexiblity.:lol:

webmail

12-07-2005, 10:02 PM

Your slightly off, read the article on Tom's hardware and you will see with firewire the CPU still spiked to 100% when he was using all the copying power. Firewire still uses the cpu.

USB 2 is nearly identical in it's processing power, it has chips that process it off of the cpu as well. Many cameras connect based on mini-usb connectors.

Look up a diagram on usb, and you will see chips that process just like firewire. Better yet go to usb.com

Originally posted by Mr. Me
This is correct. Every bit that is transferred via USB must pass through the CPU. FireWire devices contain their own intelligence and therefore can function without accessing your CPU. For example, you can connect your FireWire-enabled camcorder to your FireWire-enabled HD set-top box to display your wedding video without ever turning on your computer.

Mike Fishcake

12-08-2005, 07:18 AM

I don't have any particular affiliation to either standard, but speaking from real life experience, capturing video footage of camcorders with both USB2 and firewire connectors, USB2 has always had dropped frames when transferring, and firewire never has.

I'm an admin on a video editing forum (http://www.videoforums.co.uk/), and the amount of times people have come onto the board and asked us about why their frames have dropped when capturing on USB2, which has then been fixed by them using firewire instead, has been a LOT. SO much so that we created this emoticon:

http://www.videoforums.co.uk/images/smiles/firewire-smiley.gif

(yeah it's geeky. so sue me :P)

I'm not sure where you're getting your info from webmail - no one's saying firewire is perfect, but from my experience, and the experience from other people, you really are wrong!

(and of course USB.com are going to say USB is better. they're not exactly independent are they? :D)

Seems such a silly, inconsequential thing to get all wound up about! Why does it matter, I mean really?

elehcdn

12-22-2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by webmail
Your slightly off, read the article on Tom's hardware and you will see with firewire the CPU still spiked to 100% when he was using all the copying power. Firewire still uses the cpu.

USB 2 is nearly identical in it's processing power, it has chips that process it off of the cpu as well. Many cameras connect based on mini-usb connectors.

Look up a diagram on usb, and you will see chips that process just like firewire. Better yet go to usb.com

Actually, Firewire does all of its bus negotiation internally. That was the main breakthrough in its development. USB2 still allows the CPU to do the negotiation. For Firewire, that does make every operating system and firmware upgrade somewhat dicey, since you have two systems that need to communicate and negotiate speeds. oth, on large data transfers, the CPU can simply tell FW to negotiate its own data transfers on the bus, while USB2 has to continually bug the CPU to let it handle its negotiation.

Oh, and for Favre, I personally prefer the little thin white FW cables that Apple used to supply with their iPods.

farve

12-22-2005, 05:54 PM

Oh, and for Favre, I personally prefer the little thin white FW cables that Apple used to supply with their iPods.

Personally I was kind dissapointed when I got my firewire 800 disk, that the cable wasn't twise as thick. It's acually tinner, scandal!

Mike0919

12-22-2005, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by nickgb3
So I want to buy an external hard-drive to help out my iBook's meager storage capacity, and I feel pretty comfortable with the Lacie (Porsche design) models available at my campus computer store. Nick
Don't want to start a firestorm, but I will share an experience. Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it.

Two years ago I bought a Lacie Firewire drive to store tons of graphics. Loved it for two months (until I had all of the stuff I needed most on it) and it crashed.

First hard drive crash in 25 years.

Lacie was way less than helpful. Took the drive to a "recoverer." Ordered a second on to transport the data to. The second one was DOA.

Lacie didn't even take them back. Wanted me to pay for a third one. So many calls and so many problems with company, I got mad, threw them both away, ate the investment, lost the data.

They have a good rep. I just won't touch them again.

photoeditor

12-22-2005, 11:38 PM

Glad to see someone has brought up the barefeats tests. That's a very useful site. Indeed, whereas on Wintel, you're going to notice minimal difference between USB2 and FireWire, FireWire 400 on the Mac is still close to twice as fast as USB2. Apple has a long way to go to get its USB2 drivers right -- rather like the immense amount of time it took them a few years ago to get zip right in both HFS and FAT32 in OS X. I don't expect full parity between USB2 and FireWire 400 but I do expect USB2 to eventually get very close to FireWire 400 on the Mac as it is on the PC.

On a choice of hard drive, try Other World Computing for one. They do some good external backup drives and their support is good except that at some times of the day they aren't great on hold times. I have a LaCie and have had no trouble so far, but I got a great price on it and probably would have gone with OWC but for that sale. If you go OWC or TransInternational, to take two good examples, you should seek Oxford 911 FireWire or Oxford 922 FireWire chipsets.

theapplegenius

12-23-2005, 08:25 AM

But photoeditor, iPod transfers speeds via USB are very close between PC and Mac. Mabye Windows needs to write some better FireWire drivers, eh?

Alias789

12-23-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by theapplegenius
But photoeditor, iPod transfers speeds via USB are very close between PC and Mac. Mabye Windows needs to write some better FireWire drivers, eh?

I think that is mainly caused by the limitations of the iPods drive. Does anyone have any info on the drives specs?

elehcdn

12-23-2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by photoeditor
Glad to see someone has brought up the barefeats tests. That's a very useful site. Indeed, whereas on Wintel, you're going to notice minimal difference between USB2 and FireWire, FireWire 400 on the Mac is still close to twice as fast as USB2. Apple has a long way to go to get its USB2 drivers right -- rather like the immense amount of time it took them a few years ago to get zip right in both HFS and FAT32 in OS X. I don't expect full parity between USB2 and FireWire 400 but I do expect USB2 to eventually get very close to FireWire 400 on the Mac as it is on the PC.

Actually, I wonder if the differences between HFS+ and NTFS come into play in this situation. After all, NTFS can include compression as part of its copying scheme. Perhaps NTFS has optimized compressed copying for USB2 and not for Firewire.

NTFS Compression (http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs-compressed.htm)